NationStates Jolt Archive

Today, in morning registration, we were entreated to enroll in the amnesty international society. Personally, I find amnesty international utterly repugnent, and accordingly rejected the invitation, however I do feel my sentiments ought to be justified.

Were you to be a member of the upper echelon of a government, would you appreciate the perenial petitions and harangues over somewhat frivolous issues pertaining to human rights, in the face of more pressing issues? Would you appreciate their somewhat untenable economic policies in the face of the poverty a number of your populace endure?

To my mind, as an ardent conservative, I find such fellows as amnesty international utterly deplorable, counter-productive and a frivolous irritation to already harassed and concerned administration.

Well, I have to disagree.

All humans deserve basic rights, and I think it is good that there are people out there advocating it.

Were you to be a member of the upper echelon of a government, would you appreciate the perenial petitions and harangues over somewhat frivolous issues pertaining to human rights, in the face of more pressing issues? Would you appreciate their somewhat untenable economic policies in the face of the poverty a number of your populace endure?


I'm sorry...what? Human rights=frivolous issues?

I'm sorry...what? Human rights=frivolous issues?

Yeah, I was kinda wondering that myself...

£7 a month. If I could give more, I would.

lets hope you are never in need of them then.

Today, in morning registration, we were entreated to enroll in the amnesty international society. Personally, I find amnesty international utterly repugnent, and accordingly rejected the invitation, however I do feel my sentiments ought to be justified.

Were you to be a member of the upper echelon of a government, would you appreciate the perenial petitions and harangues over somewhat frivolous issues pertaining to human rights, in the face of more pressing issues? Would you appreciate their somewhat untenable economic policies in the face of the poverty a number of your populace endure?

To my mind, as an ardent conservative, I find such fellows as amnesty international utterly deplorable, counter-productive and a frivolous irritation to already harassed and concerned administration.

While I may not agree with AI on several issues, I fail to understand how or why anyone would find them repugnent?

And I find it equally unfathomable that a professed Christian would find that campaigns to protect oppressed Christians in several countries were utterly deplorable, counter-productive and a frivolous irritations. (You are aware of AI's activities re this, aren't you?)

While I may not agree with AI on several issues, I fail to understand how or why anyone would find them repugnent?

And I find it equally unfathomable that a professed Christian would find that campaigns to protect oppressed Christians in several countries were utterly deplorable, counter-productive and a frivolous irritations. (You are aware of AI's activities re this, aren't you?)

That's right. AI doesn't discriminate.

They fight for the people's rights regardless of race, creed, religion, sexuality or bubblegum flavor.

lets hope you are never in need of them then.

And if some Christians in the US are to be believed, he will.

To my mind, as an ardent conservative, I find such fellows as amnesty international utterly deplorable, counter-productive and a frivolous irritation to already harassed and concerned administration.
Cry more, n00b.

While I may not agree with AI on several issues, I fail to understand how or why anyone would find them repugnent?


Probably because they claim to be apolitical, but, Amnesty International U.S.A. is a member of OneWorld Network, an umbrella organization of more than 1,500 leftwing groups. It might also have something to do with the fact that they support terrorist operations by attempting to hinder efforts in Afganistan and Iraq while dismissing terrorist acts as "a reaction to social injustice."

Or maybe it has to do with thier signatory support for, "Refuse and Resist" a radical communist front group founded by C. Clark Kissinger, a longtime member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), which is a Maoist organization calling for the overthrow of the U.S. government and the establishment of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

It might even have to do with the fact that some people can identify a groups real motives and agendas when they offer such kind and sympathetic words for Saddam Hussein's government and criticism of the coalition's efforts to effect a regime change. They then had the audacity to remind everyone that they didn't take sides in international conflicts.

All I can say is, tell me another one. If a pile of shit smells like a pile of shit, it is usually a pile of shit, No matter what their purpose used to be, it has most definately become a pile of shit, in my humble opinion.

Probably because they claim to be apolitical, but, Amnesty International U.S.A. is a member of OneWorld Network, an umbrella organization of more than 1,500 leftwing groups. It might also have something to do with the fact that they support terrorist operations by attempting to hinder efforts in Afganistan and Iraq while dismissing terrorist acts as "a reaction to social injustice."

Or maybe it has to do with thier signatory support for, "Refuse and Resist" a radical communist front group founded by C. Clark Kissinger, a longtime member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), which is a Maoist organization calling for the overthrow of the U.S. government and the establishment of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

It might even have to do with the fact that some people can identify a groups real motives and agendas when they offer such kind and sympathetic words for Saddam Hussein's government and criticism of the coalition's efforts to effect a regime change. They then had the audacity to remind everyone that they didn't take sides in international conflicts.

All I can say is, tell me another one. If a pile of shit smells like a pile of shit, it is usually a pile of shit, No matter what their purpose used to be, it has most definately become a pile of shit, in my humble opinion.

Well said Liverbreath. You stated it very well.

Today, in morning registration, we were entreated to enroll in the amnesty international society. Personally, I find amnesty international utterly repugnent, and accordingly rejected the invitation, however I do feel my sentiments ought to be justified.

Were you to be a member of the upper echelon of a government, would you appreciate the perenial petitions and harangues over somewhat frivolous issues pertaining to human rights, in the face of more pressing issues? Would you appreciate their somewhat untenable economic policies in the face of the poverty a number of your populace endure?

To my mind, as an ardent conservative, I find such fellows as amnesty international utterly deplorable, counter-productive and a frivolous irritation to already harassed and concerned administration.
So, as a conservative, you are saying, "people should stop harassing the government and just let them do their job (they're only doing what's best for us)."

Harrassing abusive governments is Amnesty's preferred method. It's good that they are doing that.

Probably because they claim to be apolitical, but, Amnesty International U.S.A. is a member of OneWorld Network, an umbrella organization of more than 1,500 leftwing groups.
I'm looking at www.oneworld.net and for the most part their member organisations do not strike me as very left-wing. They work for the good of other people and not just themselves, but that's about it.

It might also have something to do with the fact that they support terrorist operations by attempting to hinder efforts in Afganistan and Iraq while dismissing terrorist acts as "a reaction to social injustice."
Source?

Or maybe it has to do with thier signatory support for, "Refuse and Resist" a radical communist front group founded by C. Clark Kissinger, a longtime member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), which is a Maoist organization calling for the overthrow of the U.S. government and the establishment of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".
I'm looking at their website www.refuseandresist.org right now but can't find anything about Amnesty International. However, I am reading their list of goals and their achievements and I can see some overlap between their goals and those of Amnesty. Most notably, both groups oppose torture (that means they must be communist. :rolleyes: )

It might even have to do with the fact that some people can identify a groups real motives and agendas when they offer such kind and sympathetic words for Saddam Hussein's government and criticism of the coalition's efforts to effect a regime change. They then had the audacity to remind everyone that they didn't take sides in international conflicts.
Source?

Well said Liverbreath. You stated it very well.
You didn't like them after they criticised your beloved government, did you?

That's right. AI doesn't discriminate.

They fight for the people's rights regardless of race, creed, religion, sexuality or bubblegum flavor.

What the fuck are they playing at?:mad:

For the record, I'm not a supporter of AI, but I don't oppose them either.

AI have noble goals but sometimes fail to go about them in correct ways. For example they often fail to inform African governments that they're representives are entering their country, so when the representives arrive they are imprisioned. This is not because the African community opposes AI, but because the AI representives did not have the correct border documents. Another thing, one of their previous campaigns lead with the title "Whats your excuse" implying that it was our responablity to help these people. I believe it is very noble to help and support those less fortunate than ourselves and those in danger of persecution, but for a volentear organisation to claim that we need an excuse not to join them is absurd.

Is this a thread to prove that for once and for all, conservatives are evil?

I'll respond to this as soon as I think of a response that won't get me forumbanned. Human rights is harrassing governments? Governments that don't respect human rights deserve to be harrassed.

I find amnesty international utterly repugnent

well, i suppose it's always good to know who's on board the pro-torture love train

Governments that don't respect human rights deserve to be harrassed.

at the very least

well, i suppose it's always good to know who's on board the pro-torture love train

I think it's already been pointed out in this thread that one can stand with Amnesty in everything they believe, but oppose the actual organization. This is the case with every political cause: bad people are capable of saying good things. Thus those who find Amnesty repugnant may do so because they have problems with the nature of the organization, not the aims of it.

Were you to be a member of the upper echelon of a government, would you appreciate the perenial petitions and harangues over somewhat frivolous issues pertaining to human rights, in the face of more pressing issues?
There is your problem right there. You think human rights are less important than other issues. I tend to feel that human rights are the base of all issues. Why would we bother forming societies otherwise? Just to make money? No...we form societies, and governments, so that our rights, our HUMAN rights can be better protected.

Or maybe it has to do with thier signatory support for, "Refuse and Resist" a radical communist front group founded by C. Clark Kissinger, a longtime member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), which is a Maoist organization calling for the overthrow of the U.S. government and the establishment of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".


I have to say as a member of the Refuse and Resist group, it is not a communist organization. Its true that there are comunists within it, but in all actuality, R&R does not have any particular political inclination. I personally am a Left-Wing Socialist but I know people (in at least the Tucson, Arizona chapter) that are libretarians, Greens, Democrats, and Republicans who are dissatisfied with Bush.

The group does not like Bush at all and wants to see him go and new elections take place, but it does not advocate - as you put it - the dictatorship of the proletariat. Perhaps you should learn more about a group before claiming they want one world communist government.

Thus those who find Amnesty repugnant may do so because they have problems with the nature of the organization, not the aims of it.

it may technically be possible, but it is not the case in any actual instance that i am aware of, except maybe ones based entirely on ignorance or confusion. it's sort of like people opposed to the aclu - there are no honest objectors to the aclu's organization but not it's aims. only people who oppose civil liberties or who have been lied to by others that do.

and anyone who can even write the phrase "somewhat frivolous issues pertaining to human rights" is already a fan of crimes against humanity.

and anyone who can even write the phrase "somewhat frivolous issues pertaining to human rights" is already a fan of crimes against humanity.
Seconded. Should we refer this person to the ICC?

I have to say as a member of the Refuse and Resist group, it is not a communist organization. Its true that there are comunists within it, but in all actuality, R&R does not have any particular political inclination. I personally am a Left-Wing Socialist but I know people (in at least the Tucson, Arizona chapter) that are libretarians, Greens, Democrats, and Republicans who are dissatisfied with Bush.

The group does not like Bush at all and wants to see him go and new elections take place, but it does not advocate - as you put it - the dictatorship of the proletariat. Perhaps you should learn more about a group before claiming they want one world communist government.

Kissinger's history of activism began in the 1960s, when he was the national secretary for the radical group Students for a Democratic Society. He also worked briefly with the Black Panthers before becoming a Maoist and joining the RCP. He is currently a contributing writer for the RCP's official newspaper, Revolutionary Worker. Kissinger strongly supported Mao's Cultural Revolution in China, and today enjoys the backing of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which, by its own words, "upholds the revolutionary Communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism," and views the Chinese Cultural Revolution as "the farthest advance of communism in human history." Kissinger also supported the Khomeini Revolution in Iran.

RCP representatives have appeared as guest speakers in virtually all R&R-organized demonstrations. The close relationship between R&R and the RCP is further demonstrated by the fact that the two groups often jointly share one another's press releases. R&R is a member of the Not In Our Name (NION) Project, an anti-war movement founded by Kissinger.

The RCP has operated under many names and run many front groups during its history: Fight Back, the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, the Revolutionary Communist Workers Brigade, Rich Off Our Backs, the Unemployed Workers Organizing Committee, the U.S.-China Peoples Friendship Association, Revolution Books, China Books, the World Without Imperialism Contingent (WWIC), the Committee to Support the Revolution in Peru, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Anti-Imperialist, No Business As Usual, Refuse & Resist, La Resistencia, and the Not In Our Name project.

Perhaps it is you who should investigate the motives, founders and history of the groups that you choose to associate yourself with. This is not an anti-Bush liberal feel good movement born in 2000. I could fill volumes about this organization, who's history and agenda you either choose to ignore or just do not know?

In any event, the simple fact that AI chooses to openly support such groups is in direct contrast of their professed, "APOLITICAL" mission. Any reasonable person without an agenda, would have no choice but to view AI as something other than what they claim to be.

I think it's already been pointed out in this thread that one can stand with Amnesty in everything they believe, but oppose the actual organization. This is the case with every political cause: bad people are capable of saying good things. Thus those who find Amnesty repugnant may do so because they have problems with the nature of the organization, not the aims of it.
What, so people find writing letters to be heniously repugnant? Most of the Amnesty-bashers on this board are just Americans who are upset that they dared to protest against the beloved President Bush's disregard for human rights in Guantanamo Bay.

So what it comes down to is these people say, "we're all for protesting governments that violate human rights - except when we do it."

Today, in morning registration, we were entreated to enroll in the amnesty international society. Personally, I find amnesty international utterly repugnent, and accordingly rejected the invitation, however I do feel my sentiments ought to be justified.

Were you to be a member of the upper echelon of a government, would you appreciate the perenial petitions and harangues over somewhat frivolous issues pertaining to human rights, in the face of more pressing issues? Would you appreciate their somewhat untenable economic policies in the face of the poverty a number of your populace endure?

To my mind, as an ardent conservative, I find such fellows as amnesty international utterly deplorable, counter-productive and a frivolous irritation to already harassed and concerned administration.

Yeah. Fuck human rights. Who needs 'em?

If I'm in the upper echelon of a government, I sure as hell don't need any human rights.

What, so people find writing letters to be heniously repugnant? Most of the Amnesty-bashers on this board are just Americans who are upset that they dared to protest against the beloved President Bush's disregard for human rights in Guantanamo Bay.

So what it comes down to is these people say, "we're all for protesting governments that violate human rights - except when we do it."

Actually what is repugnant is people who take these types of organizations at face value instead of doing their homework and finding out who they are sending money to, and what their real motives are. Irresponsible organizations such as AI may well have, or have had, very good intentions at some point. The problems arise when their greed allows for the inclusion of those that would undermine their very purpose of their existence, to promote their own political agenda. AI is a classic example of an international group that has no similiarity between their stated goals and those that they demonstrate, yet as long as they say they do it for "human rights" their support for terrorists and rogue states that butcher their citizens goes ignored and without question.

What, so people find writing letters to be heniously repugnant? Most of the Amnesty-bashers on this board are just Americans who are upset that they dared to protest against the beloved President Bush's disregard for human rights in Guantanamo Bay.

So what it comes down to is these people say, "we're all for protesting governments that violate human rights - except when we do it."


In my experience with members or organizers of AI meetings is that they are very opinionated, argumentative, stubborn people. When the US elections were on in 2004 for Pres., there were many heated "debates" between people for Bush and Kerry, and mostly it just turned into an argument-fest. I know there are people on both sides like this, but its been my experience that (at least with this chapter here in California) that they are not always the best people to talk to and have a good debate with. Same goes for the teachers. We had a mock debate, with two teachers from various departments on the AI side and two for the Bush side (this was Oct. 2004, so some of the stuff we know now wasn't discussed then). One of the AI-supporting teachers was downright obnoxious, argumentative (beyond reason on some questions), and would loudly *sigh* or make some sort of noise when one of the Bush-supporting teachers was making a point (the Bush-teachers sat quietly and waited for their turn to talk when the AI teachers were talking).

I'm not against the proclaimed aims of AI, to stop human rights abuses. But it seems to me that they are becoming downright political, at least in the USA, probably too much for their own good. I also agree that, even though they may have the right idea in mind, some of the ways they pursue those goals are questionable in methods.

While I do support having the jails at Gitmo (though, let me clarify, NOT THE ABUSES), it really enraged me when AI compared Gitmo to the Soviet Gulag system! I don't care how bad the things have gotten down there; to compare Gitmo (I don't know how many people have been reported to have died there, but its less than 20, right?) to the slave-worker system in which 30 million plus people died is no comparison at all.

I know that anyone can come up with examples like these for any side they wish, but I'm just telling you my experiences. If I ever decide to get involved with a human-rights group, I doubt it will be AI.

Well, I have to disagree.

All humans deserve basic rights, and I think it is good that there are people out there advocating it.

As long as they don't play pet tool to other political groups.

Is this a thread to prove that for once and for all, conservatives are evil?

I have a suspicion this is by a liberals puppet nation to discredit conservatives. I dont think anyone is this stupid about human rights

I have a suspicion this is by a liberals puppet nation to discredit conservatives. I dont think anyone is this stupid about human rights

The blessed chris has been around for months and has over 1500 posts. If he were a puppet, he would have been discovered long before.

snip

Okay, first issue here: you've researched the person, not the group. If I did backresearch on Pat Robertson and said that applied to every member of the Republican party - what would you think?

Second, it is true that RCP members do speak at R&R events. There are also speakers from groups like the ACLU, ANSWER, AUDIT, World Can't Wait, Rappers, Pop artists, and dozens of other groups. So again, just saying one group has a tendancy to speak at these events does not mean that the group IS the speaker.

I know the motivs of the group, I am one of the organizers. The motive is to try and create grass-roots pressure movements to get Bush to either be forced out of office or step down and hold new elections. Not, as you say, to enforce communism.

This would be the website of World Can't Wait: a parent group of R&R
Worldcan'twait (http://www.worldcantwait.net/)

Last time I checked, there was nothing about bringing in the dictatorship of the proletariat to the US.

Actually what is repugnant is people who take these types of organizations at face value instead of doing their homework and finding out who they are sending money to, and what their real motives are. Irresponsible organizations such as AI may well have, or have had, very good intentions at some point. The problems arise when their greed allows for the inclusion of those that would undermine their very purpose of their existence, to promote their own political agenda. AI is a classic example of an international group that has no similiarity between their stated goals and those that they demonstrate, yet as long as they say they do it for "human rights" their support for terrorists and rogue states that butcher their citizens goes ignored and without question.
I am a member of Amnesty International (Irish Section). I do my homework; I know what they do. I'm writing the fucking letters and raising the money here. You probably hear about one Amnesty member comparing the Guantanamo Bay system to a gulag (which was wrong and wildly exaggerated) and assume them to be a communist, terrorist, anti-American group. So much for your black-and-white view of the world.

In my years of letter writing for Amnesty, contrary to what the Bush-supporting mediawould have you believe, I have not been writing letters to Washington DC to complain about relatively trivial human rights violations. In fact, I have never written a letter to the US government. Almost every letter I have written for them, I sent to a country in Asia or Africa, indeed, the types of rogue states that torture and butcher their own citizens. That was, funnily enough, what we were protesting against.

So far you have provided no proof that Amnesty supports terrorists or murderous regimes.

it really enraged me when AI compared Gitmo to the Soviet Gulag system!

of course, the u.s. isn't just running a worldwide system of secret torture and murder facilities, but is actually running a couple of old gulag facilities with signs out front that say "now under new management"

Perhaps you should learn more about a group before claiming they want one world communist government.


For what it's worth...

Communist front group founded in 1987 by C. Clark Kissinger
Opposes the War on Terror
Supports convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal
Supported the 1992 Los Angeles rioters
Opposes the enforcement of immigration laws
Seeks the establishment of a "dictatorship of the proletariat"

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6165

Do a google search for "refuse and resist" AND communism and you'll find many,many more sites linking the two together.

Kinda makes me wonder who's correct in their assertions.

I find any attempts at demonstrating AI to be the puppet of an international maoist organization vaguely amusing, as I've done a couple projects on human rights abuse in China using AI and HRW as my primary sources, which they had quite abundantly.

As for the "politicization" of AI, you need to keep in mind that if one party is drastically opposed to human rights, and another less so, a human rights organization might be inclined towards the less abusive one, eh?

Probably because they claim to be apolitical, but, Amnesty International U.S.A. is a member of OneWorld Network, an umbrella organization of more than 1,500 leftwing groups. It might also have something to do with the fact that they support terrorist operations by attempting to hinder efforts in Afganistan and Iraq while dismissing terrorist acts as "a reaction to social injustice."

Or maybe it has to do with thier signatory support for, "Refuse and Resist" a radical communist front group founded by C. Clark Kissinger, a longtime member of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), which is a Maoist organization calling for the overthrow of the U.S. government and the establishment of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

It might even have to do with the fact that some people can identify a groups real motives and agendas when they offer such kind and sympathetic words for Saddam Hussein's government and criticism of the coalition's efforts to effect a regime change. They then had the audacity to remind everyone that they didn't take sides in international conflicts.

All I can say is, tell me another one. If a pile of shit smells like a pile of shit, it is usually a pile of shit, No matter what their purpose used to be, it has most definately become a pile of shit, in my humble opinion.

Gee, I think I detect a pile of shit.

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/

ahahaha. while it is true that r&r is sort of treated like a recruiting ground by the rcp, horowitz's tinfoil hat brigade's database isn't exactly what you'd call scholarly. and i feel left out - flint jones makes the list and i don't? unfair, i say.

Yeah, I was kinda wondering that myself...
I'm kinda worried about it.

I am a member of Amnesty International (Irish Section). I do my homework; I know what they do. I'm writing the fucking letters and raising the money here. You probably hear about one Amnesty member comparing the Guantanamo Bay system to a gulag (which was wrong and wildly exaggerated) and assume them to be a communist, terrorist, anti-American group. So much for your black-and-white view of the world.

In my years of letter writing for Amnesty, contrary to what the Bush-supporting mediawould have you believe, I have not been writing letters to Washington DC to complain about relatively trivial human rights violations. In fact, I have never written a letter to the US government. Almost every letter I have written for them, I sent to a country in Asia or Africa, indeed, the types of rogue states that torture and butcher their own citizens. That was, funnily enough, what we were protesting against.

So far you have provided no proof that Amnesty supports terrorists or murderous regimes.

Well for your information I have no interest in "Bush-Supporting media" just as I have no interest in government TV or slimball TV such as CNN.

I find it intresting that you consider the Executive Director of Amnesty International USA as simply another member, who errantly compared the institution at Guantanamo to a gulag. This is a policy maker not a letter stuffer. His comments did whether or not you care to admit it lend aid and assist the political agenda of those that systematically deny human rights as a matter of policy, for the past 500 years.
At no time did I say or assume he was a communist, however when you have no defense of your policymakers remarks, the only thing left for you to do is to attack the credibility of your detractor by implying something they probably thought. No need for a self examination at all is there?

Maybe instead of facing the reality of what is happening to your organization you might instead re-focus your efforts to have your organization drop it's claim of being an "apolitical" NGO? While you would of course lose most of your funding, it's better than being an unwitting puppet of what you purport to be against.

Contrary to your blind support for all things AI, I have no doubt there are honest and uncorrupted chapters in many places, but those that are have a responsibility to defend the integrity of their mission when less than honest sectors go astray, lest they will all come crashing down in the end.

Gee, I think I detect a pile of shit.

Well you might return to your cell and flush the toilet as soon as the library closes.

Well you might return to your cell and flush the toilet as soon as the library closes.

You are the one fascinated with "piles of shit." I merely applied your test to your post, o' scatalogical one.

Although your resort to it doesn't suprise me, I remind you that flaming is against the Rules of the forum.

Git-mo= gulag...No
In general, human rights= pressing and important...yes!!!!

His comments did whether or not you care to admit it lend aid and assist the political agenda of those that systematically deny human rights as a matter of policy, for the past 500 years.


Eh?

...His comments did whether or not you care to admit it lend aid and assist the political agenda of those that systematically deny human rights as a matter of policy, for the past 500 years...
I don't really get the outrage to be honest.
Every single person I have spoken to about Guantanamo has been positively outraged by its very existence - and even moreso because it is run by people who claim to stand for human rights and proper legal systems.
Whether you call it "Gulag" or not, the fact of the matter is that people are pissed off about the camp - and that lends support to people who disagree with the US, not a report by some organisation.

If you want to get more people to agree with US Policy in this campaign, if you want to starve support for those that resist it, then you should try and understand arguments like this one (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,384163,00.html), and try and act to rectify the situation.

You are the one fascinated with "piles of shit." I merely applied your test to your post, o' scatalogical one.

Although your resort to it doesn't suprise me, I remind you that flaming is against the Rules of the forum.

The way I read your comment it is you that should keep it in mind, but fret not, it is what I have come to expect from your posts. Now to figure out what is wrong with my ignore list where you so deservedly reside.

my ignore list where you so deservedly reside.
Well thats a mature response
:rolleyes:

So, let us see so far:

We have three groups of individuals here that object to Amnesty International.

The first believes human rights are frivilous and we don't need them.

The second believes in bizarre communist world government conspiracies.

Finally, we have those that are made about one sentence in one AI report that said something not nice about the U.S.

I'm glad to belong to AI -- particularly given the quality of our critics.

Actually what is repugnant is people who take these types of organizations at face value instead of doing their homework and finding out who they are sending money to, and what their real motives are. Irresponsible organizations such as AI may well have, or have had, very good intentions at some point. The problems arise when their greed allows for the inclusion of those that would undermine their very purpose of their existence, to promote their own political agenda. AI is a classic example of an international group that has no similiarity between their stated goals and those that they demonstrate, yet as long as they say they do it for "human rights" their support for terrorists and rogue states that butcher their citizens goes ignored and without question.

This shows your ignorance.

Please identify what rogue states that butchers their citizens are ignored by AI. I bet you can't!!!!!

I'm glad to belong to AI -- particularly given the quality of our critics.

Ditto! Why, I say: In the spirit of the coming season, I will donate €1 to AI for all the instances of sub par "criticism" (I'm loathed to use the word about anything said in this thread, as it implies value in the things said, but what can you do?) so far posted in this thread. I quickly counted 8 separate ones, so I'll round it up to €10.

Happy holidays! :)

So, let us see so far:

We have three groups of individuals here that object to Amnesty International.

The first believes human rights are frivilous and we don't need them.

The second believes in bizarre communist world government conspiracies.

Finally, we have those that are made about one sentence in one AI report that said something not nice about the U.S.

I'm glad to belong to AI -- particularly given the quality of our critics.
Hear, hear. I'd be happy to be judged by the quality of our critics.

im going with the theory that blessed chris's brother got into his computer and decided to post the most stupid thing he could think of that might start a flame war.

Gee, I think I detect a pile of shit.
Really? You need to get your vision and olfactory senses tested, methinks.
I don't detect any shit in Liverbreath's posts.

I see a great big abso-fucking-lutely huge steaming pile of shit, stacked so high it's nigh impossible to see the top.

I heart human rights

I was a reluctant conservative member of my school's AI chapter and though there were some arguments about gun control all was generally well and we were able to help get a Catholic priest in vietnam who was arrested for protesting the government freed from custody

but I left that shit last year

at the end of last year they showed us a video about how they wanted to take amnesty international in a "new direction". they played some sap story about how people living in kensington (a now poor area of Philadelphia) weren’t making enough money on welfare. they said that there were jobs elsewhere but the people shouldn't have to leave to get them, we should just pay them more welfare. WTF. how many people are dying in north korea right now? and you want to turn this into commie central?

amnesty has been co-opted by the left and is now ineffective, just like the ACLU. the ACLU used to be about protecting the constitution and now its just the atheist bitch case of the month club. now you have every right to start the atheist bitch case of the month club but actually start an atheist bitch case of the month club, don't take over an organization that already serves a purpose and redirect it while still claiming its good name and political neutrality

in conclusion, the liberals have ruined AI

Well, I have to disagree.

All humans deserve basic rights, and I think it is good that there are people out there advocating it.

Spot on.




While I do support having the jails at Gitmo (though, let me clarify, NOT THE ABUSES), it really enraged me when AI compared Gitmo to the Soviet Gulag system! I don't care how bad the things have gotten down there; to compare Gitmo (I don't know how many people have been reported to have died there, but its less than 20, right?) to the slave-worker system in which 30 million plus people died is no comparison at all.

The point of the comperison is the fact the the gov has a secret prision that is cut off from the rest of the world and outside the law. The 20 deaths number only means something if you trust the government. Which I personally don't. They don't have a very good track record (this administration, the US gov, especially in time of war, and governments in general).

Also worth note, the CIA is using 2 former Gulags for their secret tourture camps. Fun.


For what it's worth...

Communist front group founded in 1987 by C. Clark Kissinger
Opposes the War on Terror
Supports convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal
Supported the 1992 Los Angeles rioters
Opposes the enforcement of immigration laws
Seeks the establishment of a "dictatorship of the proletariat"

I oppose Bush's bullshit wars, and concider the "war on terror" a farce.
I'd need the facts on Mumia Abu-Jamal. Cops arn't automatically good people who don't deserve to be shot. And convicted doesn't mean guilty.
I support the 1992 LA rioters, in principle
I see no reason any group of people can tell me where I can and cannot go, so I suppose that makes me against immigration laws.
I vehemently reject any dictatorship, inclusing one "of the proletariat." Fuck that noise. I am no Moaist, they are even worse then Bush and his ilk.

What's your point?

amnesty has been co-opted by the left and is now ineffective, just like the ACLU. the ACLU used to be about protecting the constitution and now its just the atheist bitch case of the month club. now you have every right to start the atheist bitch case of the month club but actually start an atheist bitch case of the month club, don't take over an organization that already serves a purpose and redirect it while still claiming its good name and political neutrality.

No, the ACLU protects the rights of Christains too, that just doesn't get publisized. They are still, as far as I can see, a group to defend the civil liberties of all people.

the ACLU used to be about protecting the constitution and now its just the atheist bitch case of the month club.
It only appears that way because you and many other christians think you have absolute say on what should be civil rights and any one who disagrees with that is an atheist bitch.
Just because a group happens to turn their attentions to the wrong doings of a group you hold close to your heart does not mean they have changed their policies or that they are not center. I will assume (and may be wrong but I doubt it) you are refering to the ACLU's stance on religion in the public school system. In which case I have to say grow up.

Were you to be a member of the upper echelon of a government, would you appreciate the perenial petitions and harangues over somewhat frivolous issues pertaining to human rights, in the face of more pressing issues? Would you appreciate their somewhat untenable economic policies in the face of the poverty a number of your populace endure?

To my mind, as an ardent conservative, I find such fellows as amnesty international utterly deplorable, counter-productive and a frivolous irritation to already harassed and concerned administration.
What in God's name? How could anyone possibly say that? Amnesty has petitioned successfully the international criminal court, among other things, and these aren't "harrassed" officials we're writing to; they're willing participants in, for example, military dictatorships, such as Myanmar. "frivolous issues"Personally, I should have thought we in the West had moved beyond condoning torture, but here we are, with you tacitly supporting the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. You move on to suggest that Amnesty proposes "Somewhat untenable economic policies" - Like what, stopping buying arms from us to shoot their own people demonstrating for democracy?

Gah. Sometimes I wonder...:rolleyes:

The group does not like Bush at all and wants to see him go and new elections take place

Umm... can you clarify this? The group (Refuse & Resist) wants to just throw out the U.S. Constitution? And replace it with what, exactly?

I heart human rights

I was a reluctant conservative member of my school's AI chapter and though there were some arguments about gun control all was generally well and we were able to help get a Catholic priest in vietnam who was arrested for protesting the government freed from custody

but I left that shit last year

at the end of last year they showed us a video about how they wanted to take amnesty international in a "new direction". they played some sap story about how people living in kensington (a now poor area of Philadelphia) weren’t making enough money on welfare. they said that there were jobs elsewhere but the people shouldn't have to leave to get them, we should just pay them more welfare. WTF. how many people are dying in north korea right now? and you want to turn this into commie central?

amnesty has been co-opted by the left and is now ineffective, just like the ACLU. the ACLU used to be about protecting the constitution and now its just the atheist bitch case of the month club. now you have every right to start the atheist bitch case of the month club but actually start an atheist bitch case of the month club, don't take over an organization that already serves a purpose and redirect it while still claiming its good name and political neutrality

in conclusion, the liberals have ruined AI


I like you. You're silly. :D

I happen to have relatives who are former Cuban political prisoners, one of them founded an emigration house in Venezuela before Hugo Chavez, for former Cuban political prisoners, it has helped thousands of former political prisoners and other Cubans emigrate to the USA and or adjust to life in Venezuela, I have been trying to find out information on how this house is doing now without any success but I will keep trying, so I can relate to the following source.
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Public Statement

AI Index: AMR 25/019/2005 (Public)
News Service No: 217
9 August 2005


Cuba: No dissent allowed
Fifteen people remain in detention following a recent government crackdown on dissidence on 13 and 22 July. Amnesty International is concerned that they may be subjected to harsh or disproportionate prison sentences solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression, association and assembly.
On 13 and 22 July, the Cuban authorities reportedly detained more than 50 people, including journalists and political activists who were organizing or participating in demonstrations.

While most of the dissidents were released without charge, at least 15 men remain in prison and are reportedly facing charges of “public disorder” or criminal charges under the Law for the Protection of the National Independence and Economy of Cuba, also known as Law 88.

On 13 July at least two dozen dissidents were apparently detained in Havana by Cuban police whilst participating in a peaceful memorial for the victims of the “13 de Marzo” tugboat disaster of 1994 in which some 35 people, including children, died when the vessel in which they were attempting to flee Cuba sank after reportedly being rammed by three other vessels, apparently acting under official instructions (see AMR 25/13/97 for more information).

On 22 July around 30 people were arrested as they tried to participate in an anti-government demonstration outside the French Embassy. Nine of them remain in detention and to Amnesty International’s knowledge some may face up to 20 years in prison if they are tried and sentenced under Law 88.

The Cuban authorities continue to suppress any form of dissent by methods such as harassment, threats, intimidation, detention and long-term imprisonment. Amnesty International has received many reports that trials for politically motivated offences or charges frequently fail to meet international fair trial standards.

Amnesty International condemns detention solely for the peaceful exercise of fundamental rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly and considers such detainees to be prisoners of conscience.

Amnesty International calls on the Cuban authorities:

to release all prisoners of conscience;
to bring charges against those still in detention or release them;
to ensure that they are given a fair trial in compliance with international standards;
to refrain from the use of criminal law in such a way as to stifle criticism of state authorities or government policies, or to intimidate those who voice peaceful dissent;
to ensure that peaceful demonstrators are not imprisoned and harassed simply for exercising their right to freedom of expression, assembly and association;
to reform laws, regulations and administrative practices relating to freedom of expression, association and assembly in accordance with international standards.











AI Index: AMR 25/019/2005 9 August 2005

Good thing that Cuba has a 100% literacy rate, so that everyone can read the Amnesty International reports about their own country... :rolleyes:

....
I'm glad to belong to AI -- particularly given the quality of our critics.

Seems about time to sign up!

I'm sorry...what? Human rights=frivolous issues?

Well quite, in the face of more pressing, more pervasive concerns, human rights are an unnecessary and fraudulent issue.

Well quite, in the face of more pressing, more pervasive concerns, human rights are an unnecessary and fraudulent issue.

Ok, I have to call BS on this one.

Well quite, in the face of more pressing, more pervasive concerns, human rights are an unnecessary and fraudulent issue.
How's that exactly? And fraudulent? Ridiculous. Why not give an example of a 'more pressing and pervasive' concern...one that has absolutely nothing to do with human rights.

Ok, I have to call BS on this one.
Ok, I'm getting confused...I'm sorry...I always mix you up with Colodia...which one of you is the right wing, flag waver?

Well quite, in the face of more pressing, more pervasive concerns, human rights are an unnecessary and fraudulent issue.

Would you please name three (3) more pressing, more pervasive issues?

Would you please name three (3) more pressing, more pervasive issues?
Sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll.

in conclusion, the liberals have ruined AI

Is it just me, or is this one of the single most contradictory one sentence posts ever made?

Would you please name three (3) more pressing, more pervasive issues?

the economy, law and order, and political survival.

Ok, I'm getting confused...I'm sorry...I always mix you up with Colodia...which one of you is the right wing, flag waver?

:confused:

I'm sorry but I think you lost me here. You suprised that I called his BS?

Sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll.

Those count as human rights.

the economy, law and order, and political survival.

So you're saying the right to fair trial is less important than, um, law and order. Nice work. But, please, promise you won't go into politics.

Those count as human rights.
I've told women my whole life that sex is a human right, but most of them don't believe it.

the economy, law and order, and political survival.

What exactly do you mean by political survival?

And by law and order, I assume you don't include those irritating bits about freedom of expression, religion, association etc.

I've told women my whole life that sex is a human right, but most of them don't believe it.


Nah. The problem is they expect GOOD sex as a human right. No pleasing them.

Sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll.
HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES ALL:

sex - forced sex? sexual slavery? age of consent? homosexual sex? incest? BE MORE SPECIFIC:)

drugs - peasants are forced to grow opium, people are forced to be mules, drugs are given to child soldiers to pep them up, war on drugs, medical marijuana...

rock and roll - live 8 is a joke, bob geldoff, bono...rocking for human rights, yeah whatever, freedom of expression versus censorship...

See...they're all tied in with human rights.

:confused:

I'm sorry but I think you lost me here. You suprised that I called his BS?
No...I just can't tell if one of his own defected, or if one of mine got him:)

HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES ALL:

sex - forced sex? sexual slavery? age of consent? homosexual sex? incest? BE MORE SPECIFIC:)

Never seen Amnesty International advocate for my right to get laid on a Friday night when I was younger. That was a pretty big issue for me, and they still don't seem to be working on it.

So you're saying the right to fair trial is less important than, um, law and order. Nice work. But, please, promise you won't go into politics.

Not the right to a fair trial...

Damn, my fault... in my lambasting amnesty international I was more lambasting the sentiment whereby excessive human rights, beyond those considered reasonable, are considered in precedence to the safety of a nation. Where fundamental human rights are concerned, I would bot advocate and defend them, however the culture engendered by political correctness has facilitated an escalation in human rights to the level of lunacy, wherein they are the principal concerns, above those of the multitude.

No...I just can't tell if one of his own defected, or if one of mine got him:)

Nah, I haven't defected at all. I may not like Amnesty International but I am a believer in Human Rights.

Never seen Amnesty International advocate for my right to get laid on a Friday night when I was younger. That was a pretty big issue for me, and they still don't seem to be working on it.
You misread that right...it's the right to the pursuit of sexual fulfillment...not the right to be guaranteed it:)

But AI would work on your right not to be forced into....oh, Friday night prison sex, for example.

I've told women my whole life that sex is a human right, but most of them don't believe it.

Were you by any chance telling them that Your having sex with Them Now was a Human Right????

You misread that right...it's the right to the pursuit of sexual fulfillment...not the right to be guaranteed it:)

But AI would work on your right not to be forced into....oh, Friday night prison sex, for example.


My hero. :)

Not the right to a fair trial...

Damn, my fault... in my lambasting amnesty international I was more lambasting the sentiment whereby excessive human rights, beyond those considered reasonable, are considered in precedence to the safety of a nation. Where fundamental human rights are concerned, I would bot advocate and defend them, however the culture engendered by political correctness has facilitated an escalation in human rights to the level of lunacy, wherein they are the principal concerns, above those of the multitude.
Then you must have some specific examples in mind...and yes, this really does change your argument. What kind of situation are you thinking of, where a certain 'human right' is a fraudelent issue, compared to a more pressing one? (And are you taking AI out of this, or should I make them a criteria of the question as well?)

Nah, I haven't defected at all. I may not like Amnesty International but I am a believer in Human Rights.
So you ARE the flag waving patriot? I need to get you two straight...I think it's because you both came on NS around the same time.

What exactly do you mean by political survival?

And by law and order, I assume you don't include those irritating bits about freedom of expression, religion, association etc.

Not in the slightest, I would defend such concepts, merely not in precedence to legal proceedings themselves.

Not in the slightest, I would defend such concepts, merely not in precedence to legal proceedings themselves.

Indeed, the human rights generations differ in importance. The right to life (1st generation)is considerably more important than, say, the right to a nice car (6th generation).

Then you must have some specific examples in mind...and yes, this really does change your argument. What kind of situation are you thinking of, where a certain 'human right' is a fraudelent issue, compared to a more pressing one? (And are you taking AI out of this, or should I make them a criteria of the question as well?)

I am not removing AI, they are the principal advocates of the precedence of all human rights above all concerns.

In terms of examples, I must confess to recalling no such incidences, beyond a case wherein terror suspects are petioned for release irrespective of the patently obvious fact that they sympathise with such concepts, and would prosecute an according course were they given the means.

Sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll.

nice :)

the economy, law and order, and political survival.

Funny, that's just what dictators throughout history always promise their people to justify their stripping of human rights. Stalin, Hitler, Moa, all that shit. And we all know what well that turned out.

The porpose of government is to ensure our human rights. Says so in the Decleration of Independence.

And regardless, human rights trumps all those things. Especially political survival.

Funny, that's just what dictators throughout history always promise their people to justify their stripping of human rights. Stalin, Hitler, Moa, all that shit. And we all know what well that turned out.

The porpose of government is to ensure our human rights. Says so in the Decleration of Independence.

And regardless, human rights trumps all those things. Especially political survival.

In which case, given the declaration of independance is indeed, my history is infallible, an american incarnation, I am in no manner compelled to consider it.

I am not removing AI, they are the principal advocates of the precedence of all human rights above all concerns. You are mistaken. They are an organisation with a particular goal in mind...to stop human rights abuses. They are in no way required, or capable of taking all factors into consideration when dealing with specific cases. They are a single-issue group. I think you are expecting a bit much of them.

In terms of examples, I must confess to recalling no such incidences, beyond a case wherein terror suspects are petioned for release irrespective of the patently obvious fact that they sympathise with such concepts, and would prosecute an according course were they given the means. The basis for these petitions are usually quite valid...usually asking that habeas corpus be respected and that an actual charge be brought against them, rather than indefinite detention. The idea is that even criminals should have certain basic human rights...a sentiment which most Western societies seem to agree with.

You are mistaken. They are an organisation with a particular goal in mind...to stop human rights abuses. They are in no way required, or capable of taking all factors into consideration when dealing with specific cases. They are a single-issue group. I think you are expecting a bit much of them.


I would submit that the ICRC does a far, far better job of not becoming a political tool of one group or another when compared to Amnesty International.

I would submit that the ICRC does a far, far better job of not becoming a political tool of one group or another when compared to Amnesty International.
That's very nice.

But it doesn't change the fact that AI should not be required to tackle all issues, or else tackle none. Human rights are their priority because that is their issue. Fur is the priority of anti-fur groups. That doesn't mean they are deliberately making fur the most important issue of all time to the detriment of other issues...that is simply their focus.

For the record, there is not a single large NGO that I support personally. I prefer smaller, grassroots organisations because I can see the changes personally. I'm concrete like that.

In which case, given the declaration of independance is indeed, my history is infallible, an american incarnation, I am in no manner compelled to consider it.

My first point regarding historical dictators still applies.

Sorry for assumeing you're American, most anti-AI folk are, in my experience.

And I stand by my assertation that the porpose of gov is to protect the rights of the governed. I hace found no other justification for the existance of government.