Sagepaper

I thought I would read Amnesty International's report about the treatment of detainees from the War on Terror by the US. I have long had a great respect for AI, and was unhappy with their sloppy use of rhetoric. I have been displeased with exaggerations generally in our society. Hyperbole is entertaining, but it does not have a place in serious work. On the face of it, I knew they were way off track in characterizing Guantanamo Bay's facility as a Gulag.

I did not read the full report from AI. As I read the cover-statement to their individual country reports, it became obvious to me that one or more females were key players in the production of the document. After reading the introduction, I permitted my eyes to scan around. Sure enough, the Secretary General of AI is a woman. Operating at this level in the international community, the gender of a leader or author should not be obvious.

I went to the specific report on the USA. After reading the opening two paragraphs, I decided to read no further. This is not the organization I came to respect and admire. I believe they libel us with this quote:

Evidence came to light that the US administration had sanctioned
interrogation techniques that violated the UN Convention against Torture.

What has made the allowed interrogation techniques controversial, rather than scandalous, is that they are NOT violations of international law. At least that is so to the best of my knowledge. Lawyers can make a mess of most anything. Unfortunately, a good faith effort by all led to problems. We asked lawyers how far we could go without breaking the rules. They told us what we could do: lawyers are not specially trained in telling you what you should do.

I was actually put-off, however, at what AI did not cite as a failing of the USA. I have agreed with them on matters of trying juveniles as adults. I think there should be room for a judgment call at 16 or 17, with age 16 being an anomaly. Kids who aren't even through Junior High School should not be tried as adults. Worse is the imposition of the death penalty on any minor offender.

It looks to me like AI has been hijacked. I don't know when or how this happened. The Hijackers are enjoying great brand-name recognition for their agenda, but that won't last forever. As the new folks continue to become unrealistic in their reports and projects, they will become discredited. It's a shame that AI will lose credibility. It was hard to build in the first place. Some start-up will have to step-in to fill the void left by the decline of the real AI.

Following is the introduction I thought was created by one or more females:

During 2004, the human rights of ordinary men, women and children were disregarded or grossly abused in every corner of the globe. Economic interests, political hypocrisy and socially orchestrated discrimination continued to fan the flames of conflict around the world. The "War on Terror" appeared more effective in eroding international human rights principles than in countering international terrorism. The millions of women who suffered gender-based violence in the home, in the community or in war zones were largely ignored. The economic, social and cultural rights of marginalized communities were almost entirely neglected.

This Amnesty International Report, which covers 149 countries, highlights the failure of national governments and international organizations to deal with human rights violations, and calls for greater international accountability.

The report also acknowledges the opportunities for positive change that emerged in 2004, often spearheaded by human rights activists and civil society groups. Calls to reform the UN human rights machinery grew in strength, and there were vibrant campaigns to make corporations more accountable, strengthen international justice, control the arms trade and stop violence against women.

Whether in a high profile conflict or a forgotten crisis, Amnesty International campaigns for justice and freedom for all and seeks to galvanize public support to build a better world.

(Irene Khan, AI's Secretary General)

The first paragraph made me wonder if they even had a clue. Had they heard of the Taliban? Did they know how life was for Afghani women under the rule of the Taliban? Were they aware that the US had invaded Afghanistan and ousted the Taliban? Did they understand that we improved dramatically the lives of some of the worst abused women on the planet? Did they even have a clue?