Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Amnesty International: About time they were ignored?

  • 30-11-2001 1:52am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 589 ✭✭✭


    We cannot and should not ignore human rights abuses. BUT on the day Mazar-i-Sharif fell Amnesty called for an international inquiry into the deaths of 600 Taliban fighters there. During the course of the prison rebellion in the same city Amnesty have done exactly the same again. I do not query the need for such an enquiry, but the timing is so off it has to be suspect.

    In effect Amnesty International called (and are calling) for General Rashid Dostem to be brought to account. This I suppose is supposed to happen either before of during the formation of a new Afghan government (either way it they are trying). The format of this government is not set and is still to be implemented. If it is not formed the Afghan people will suffer years more of bloodshed and hardship. One of the Major players in this new government is (you guesed it) Rashid Dostem (da-naaa!).

    Amnesties jab at him at this super sensitive time (though he is a distasteful character) points to a bias on Amnesties behalf against America (who are no saints) and any of its allies but strikes at the hopes and aspirations of the Afghan people. The consequesces of any inquiry would be disaster for Afghanistan. So why now? Can you name a Taliban volunteer who has pulled out a womans finger nails for wearing nail polish? One who skinned a youth alive or executed an entire village? Or is the lack of names in these cases and calls for enquiries an over sight by Amnesty?

    No matter what sort of character Dostem is, calls for an investigation are not going to matter one little bit to him, but will destablise any new Afghan broad based government by alienating a percentage (Uzbeks) of Afghanistan. Amnesty are either guilty of gross anti-US bias or are so incredibly stupid or detached from reality that they simply cannot see (or do not care about) real people.

    There is NO SUCH THING as a liberal in politics, and Amnesty are playing political games. Everybody in politics has an agenda, and I for one will not give a penny more to this organisation. They can buy their own bloody Tofu steaks. Morons.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭Gargoyle


    LOL. This "Prison Uprising" was the best thing that could have possibly happened with these foreign fighters. What would have happened otherwise? They would have been sent back to their home countries? Many would continue terrorist operations? Woudl that have been preferable? I think not.

    They went to Afghanistan to be martyrs, let them be martyrs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,782 ✭✭✭Xterminator


    Amnesty are without doubt a very political organisation, and as such have there own bias. This is true though of many organisations. (eg UN)

    But surely there is a clear difference between an gunbattle with an armed mob , and a massacere of civilians?

    X


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 589 ✭✭✭Magwitch


    Well as to the fate of Foreign Taliban fighters, I personally was delighted to see them offed. I know that sounds aweful, but many opposed to intervention in Afghanistan have pointed to Afghanistan as being a graveyard for Foreign armies, and low and behold - it is, just not the army anti-war protesters had in mind. Lol.

    But that aside, both alledged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif were of Taliban fighters, not civilians.

    Amnesty is supposed to be politically neutral. Respecting, supporting and monitoring the UN charter on human rights and other such accords is its stated aim. It is their "alledged" neutrality that is supposed to give them the authority to talk on these issues and without fear of contradiction. Now my beef is that if pressure groups within Amnesty are able to air their views through the organisation or stear its decisions using politicaly minded reasons, then the very things Amnesty stands for are cheapened by its own efforts. Human rights should not be a tool of any one single pressure group who are pushing a political agenda, and if this is the way Amnesty is prepared to go, we may as well tear up the Geneva Convention as it would become a weapon, not a treaty (which is how Amnesty seems to think it should be used). A bad bad precident is being set. So as I siad, maybe they should be ignored in order to save our treaties and statuates under the UN.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 589 ✭✭✭Magwitch


    P.S. These are OUR RIGHTS, yours, mine and everybody elses that Amnesty is tooling about with. It is not Amnesties place to interfere and abuse OUR RIGHTS for the ends of its own members and their political masters.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by Magwitch
    Well as to the fate of Foreign Taliban fighters, I personally was delighted to see them offed. I know that sounds aweful, but many opposed to intervention in Afghanistan have pointed to Afghanistan as being a graveyard for Foreign armies, and low and behold - it is, just not the army anti-war protesters had in mind. Lol.

    But that aside, both alledged massacres in Mazar-i-Sharif were of Taliban fighters, not civilians.

    So, what you are saying is that you fully support the slaughtering of soldiers who surrender? Or is it just that you approve of this treatment when the people being slaughtered are what you perceive as "the bad guys" ?

    At a guess, were the Taliban fighters to somehow capture some US soldiers, you would not be so happy to hear that they slaughtered them in cold blood rather than treating them as risoners of war.

    If you take this line, then you are basically saying that they do not deserve the same rights which you want for the other side. Which would be at odds with criticising Amnesty because they "interfere and abuse with OUR RIGHTS".

    Amnesty is supposed to be politically neutral. Respecting,
    supporting and monitoring the UN charter on human rights and other such accords is its stated aim. It is their "alledged"
    And somehow you find that criticising the abuse of human rights is wrong? They have condemned the actions of the Taliban before. They have condemned the actions of the Northern Alliance. They are criticising the US' complicity in these latest acts.

    Exactly how is this not neutral?

    You, on the other hand, are taking the view that their criticism is illtimed because of the political ramifications their actions would result in. In effect, you appear to be arguing that Human Rights violations should not be answered for because it is not politically expedient to do so at this time....which seems a bit hypocritical.

    In short - from what I can see, Amnesty is doing what they always do - accusing those in charge of allowing human rights violations on a large scale to occur. You, on the other hand, are saying that they shouldnt do this because its not expedient. How you can turn this into them being biased and unfair is beyond me - they are actually taking the most politically neutral stance I can imagine....by saying that nothing can excuse large-scale human rights violations as appears to have happened in Mazar-i-Sharif.

    jc

    jc


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    Moved to Politics.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Whilst the entire issue is rather hazy and confusing, it looks very likely that a human rights violation happened.

    But as awful and disgusting as the whole episode was, there is a certain sense of perverse "poetic justice" in it.

    Most of the prisoners were Al Queda operatives - the very people who would have slaughtered ANY westerners they caught, military or otherwise without so much as a second thought on the matter. The world has been done a service here.

    Don't get me wrong, I think that something seriously f*cked up happened at that prison and that people HAVE A LOT of explaining to do. But as I said ... on the other hand, a rather perverse, if poetic, act of natural justice has been carried out.

    And once more for the flamers out there .. I AM NOT condoning what happened .. just pointing out what I stated above.

    Of course ... I'm sure I haven't worded this properly and it'll come out all wrong .. but what the hell!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 589 ✭✭✭Magwitch


    Originally posted by bonkey


    So, what you are saying is that you fully support the slaughtering of soldiers who surrender? Or is it just that you approve of this treatment when the people being slaughtered are what you perceive as "the bad guys" ?

    Do you not read or listen to the news Bonkey? The Taliban negioated their surrender, then attacked their guards, ceased the fortress (with its magazine) and proceeded to re-engague with Afghan forces (whose country they had previously occuopied). Reporters on the spot (who were injured by the initial attack on the prison guards were eye witnesses). Who exactly had surrendered? Prisoners do not to the best of my knowledge control their prison, kill their guards and carry weapons. And why is it now that the medias eye witness accounts are so convieniently discounted suddenly? Get a grip.
    Originally posted by bonkey
    And somehow you find that criticising the abuse of human rights is wrong? They have condemned the actions of the Taliban before. They have condemned the actions of the Northern Alliance. They are criticising the US' complicity in these latest acts.

    Did you even read the origional post? The defence of human rights is an admirable goal, what I object to is politically motivated critisim, and given the timing that is what it looks like. Your pathetic attempt to infer I do not hold the same "lofty" values as you is crass nonsence. And on your point, can you name a Taliban commander responsible for atrocities? If an even handed approach is not taken then critism becomes invalid. If you would care to read my point again you would see my main concern is that the paltform upon which human rights is defended becomes diluted and ineffectual when political motivations come into play (i.e. my main concern in this issue IS human rights in its broadest context). I am not defending either the Northern Alliance or America, though it seems you cannot make a point without trying to draw that camparison. Very weak.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by Magwitch

    Do you not read or listen to the news Bonkey? Lets recap for the illiterate or blinkered then.

    The two administrators of the forum have requested no insulting of other posters. As one of those two moderators, I'm giving you one warning, rather than editing your post directly.

    If you cant keep a civil tongue in your head, then I will delete any posts of yours with offensive content - as opposed to just edit the offensive content.

    When you decide to be a bit more civil, perhaps you might edit your post to remove the unnecessary offensiveness, at which point I will respond to it properly.

    jc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,149 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Originally posted by bonkey
    If you cant keep a civil tongue in your head, then I will delete any posts of yours with offensive content - as opposed to just edit the offensive content.

    Not meaning to jump in between the 2 of you here .. but isn't deleting ONE person's postings, rather than edit as you had stated an abuse of mod. powers. You would be singling out one person for such treatment above others. ?????

    Just a thought


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    No if someone ignores the warnings to keep the arguements civil then the moderators(me) are perfectly entitled to delete the abusive post. Why should we babysit someone who cannot express themselves in an intelligent manner without resorting to describing others as "illiterate or blinkered".

    I'll post my views on this topic later.

    Gandalf.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by Lemming
    Not meaning to jump in between the 2 of you here .. but isn't deleting ONE person's postings, rather than edit as you had stated an abuse of mod. powers. You would be singling out one person for such treatment above others. ?????
    Maybe I put myself badly. I will not be editing posts as other mods have done. If the post is offensive, I will delete it. I will keep a copy in case someone whines that it wasnt offensive and I need to explain why.

    Mag is the first person to step over the line...he gets a warning. No more will be given to anyone. At least, not by me.

    jc


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭Gargoyle


    In any case, I have no sympathy for people that go to fight with the intention of becoming martyrs only to promptly surrender when their martyrdom is at hand, whether that surrender was genuine or not.

    I'm not going to lose any sleep over these foreign fighters being slaughtered. By all accounts, they never intended to surrender anyway; it was meraly a ploy to bide time. Good riddance. Enjoy your 70 virgins, lol.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 589 ✭✭✭Magwitch


    Point Taken, Comment withdrawn. However I find it incredible that words can be twisted and rather distastful personal slurs be inferred by the very person who is supposed to be keeping things in order (not refering to Gandlaf). I would have no objection to my post being either deleted or edited (as I have done) but NOT by the person who is taking issue with the origional post and quoting it selectivly to infer that the poster (me) does not respect human rights and applaudes massacres. A counter point could easily have been made without that sort of mud slinging. I apologise for any offence caused and would expect the same courtesy. Thankyou.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,468 ✭✭✭Evil Phil


    It is not Amnesties place to interfere and abuse OUR RIGHTS for the ends of its own members and their political masters.

    A:- How are we abusing your rights?
    B:- Who are our political masters?
    If you would care to read my point again you would see my main concern is that the platform upon which human rights is defended becomes diluted and ineffectual when political motivations come into play

    Can you give an example of these political motivations? You're making a lot of accusations with out backing up with evidence. Amnesty are calling for an investigation into possible abuses. That's what we do, we defend human(s) rights. We are not trying to further a political goal, unless human rights are a political goal. As a member of Amnesty International I can tell you we've been calling for investigations and putting pressure on the Taliban since 1997. I don't think you're familiar enough with our work to make these kind of accusations. So once again I ask for evidence to support you claims.

    I think the timing of the call for investigation is ideal, if this is an atrocity then it would be best (imho) for the Afghan people not to be led by those who would commit such an act. What would that change?

    p.s. Sorry to get back onto topic and all. You can continue flaming now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by Magwitch
    Point Taken, Comment withdrawn. However I find it incredible that words can be twisted and rather distastful personal slurs be inferred by the very person who is supposed to be keeping things in order (not refering to Gandlaf).
    Fine - PM me with the "distasteful personal slurs" from my post above, and I'll edit them out if I agree that they are in any way personally insulting.

    Thanks for editing it though...I appreciate it.

    quoting it selectivly to infer that the poster (me) does not respect human rights and applaudes massacres.

    There were two events in M-i-S which you drew reference to - the apparent execution of 600 surrendered soldiers when the city was liberated, and the subsequent events in the nearby prison.

    You expressed delight (your word, not mine) at these deaths in both cases. I questioned that. If you had limited yourself to the prison events, then I wouldnt have had the same problem.

    Now, addressing the points you made in that post...

    I checked Amnesty's site. There, they say that they are calling for an inquiry into the events. They want it run by the relevant people (US/UK), and are willing to send an observer. They feel it needs to be done without delay while there is still evidence available. The purpose of the enquiry is to determine how it happened, and thus, who is responsible. The Northern Alliance accepted this request, the British have rejected it. In none of their press statements could I find a reference to Dostem - the naming of whom seemed to be central to your argument. Where did you get the info from? I'm not saying its wrong...I'm just interested in seeing it because its obviously at odds with Amnesty's own press statements.

    Interestingly, I couldnt find any statement from them concerning the events during the liberation of M-i-S (the 600 allegedly executed), so again, any links to where you found that info would be appreciated.

    Assuming you are correct, I'm still not sure that your conclusions are valid, however.

    Amnesty wanted an inquiry ASAP for the aforementioned reasons. I cannot see how the timing of this is "suspicious" in any way, and thus how they are risking the upholding of human rights through having hidden political agendas.

    I would argue that had they not issued the request when they did, then they are basically saying that we only need to worry about human rights violations when it is politically expedient to mention it....which would be an even greater betrayal of their principles.

    Finally - your argument about the my / others inability to name Taliban leaders accused of atrocities seems slightly irrelevant. Amnesty have long condemned the actions of the Taliban, so how my ability to name the Taliban leaders reflects Amnesty's upholding (or failure thereof) of Human Rights defeats me...

    jc


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    as far as i remember, devore is big into AI you may not win to many friends with this.

    Sometimes they are usefull, and you have to give the people the respect they deserve


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    The consequesces of any inquiry would be disaster for Afghanistan.

    Pray tell how so? Are you saying it's better to put a possible (war) criminal into power?

    Can you name a Taliban volunteer who has pulled out a womans finger nails for wearing nail polish? One who skinned a youth alive or executed an entire village?

    Hmm, the Northern Alliance are just as bad as the Taliban. So much so that the NA aren't even called by thier real name.

    Amnesty are either guilty of gross anti-US bias or are so incredibly stupid or detached from reality that they simply cannot see (or do not care about) real people.

    We have people who machine gunned in an open court yard from above walls. It's not sure if any or all the prisoners were armed. It even made it onto TV in Ireland.

    We also have lovely pictures of the NA dragging surrenderd taliban through the streets and killing them and you want us to believe that putting these people into power will somehow make it all better?

    Amnesty are playing political games.

    AI don't play political games, at least not the way you mention.

    I wish there was an AI speaker on the board as they could probably explain it in a bit better detail for you then I ever could.

    But I am curious how swapping one set of group of murderers for another helps things?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 898 ✭✭✭Winning Hand


    Originally posted by bonkey

    At a guess, were the Taliban fighters to somehow capture some US soldiers, you would not be so happy to hear that they slaughtered them in cold blood rather than treating them as risoners of war.

    Actually, an incident like that happened in 1991 in Somalia, 18 delta force and army rangers were killed after an extraction of a local warlord went pear shaped. The television images following of mutilated american bodies being dragged though the city changed american foreign policy in the unofficial 'mogadishu principle', to do everything in their power to avoid similiar circumstances. Its like being stung by a bee and going off in hunt of the nest. Im not for a second condoning the massacre, given the extreme measures taken in quelling it, however at the same time im not gonna lose any sleep over their deaths.

    As for amnesty, they really had no choice but to call for an inquiry lest they lose face in the art student populace (second half of sentance was a joke). Again to draw analogys it would be as if Greenpeace were to overlook an oil tanker spill. Hope some of you could make out what I was trying to say--- long week

    We could be heroes, just for one day


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭Gargoyle


    Originally posted by Winning Hand



    As for amnesty, they really had no choice but to call for an inquiry lest they lose face in the art student populace (second half of sentance was a joke). Again to draw analogys it would be as if Greenpeace were to overlook an oil tanker spill. Hope some of you could make out what I was trying to say--- long week


    We could be heroes, just for one day

    True, true, winning hand. I suppose they had to do so or they wouldn't be consistant.

    I only wish those fighters who went to Afghanistan wanting to become martyrs had been consistant as well rather than surrendering. Oh well, at least they're toast now.

    To answer the original question, I wouldn't ever completely ignore AI, as they do sometimes highlight valid HR abuses. I do realize they had to be consistant here. Still, I think they could do a little better than to investigate whether a bunch of terrorist mercenaries died unfairly. Just be happy they're dead and get over it.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 589 ✭✭✭Magwitch


    Allow me to explain my standpoint (without selective quoting from this board). Anita Roddick, founder of the "Body Shop" was interviwed on Sunday morning (2nd Dec) TV3 about the Anti-Globalisatoin movement, in her role as an influential luminary of the movement. She stated: "The movements cross-over from Anti-globalisation to Anti-war was seemless and that is the beauty of the organistaion", end quote. This is about the scariest thing I have ever heard. My thoughts go something like this...

    Since when is there a "pan-Goodness" movement with a monopoly on rightiousness? Why if one supports pro-green issues and the green party is one suppossed to support everything the party does? There was no serious debate within the green party on Nice (and no chance of it ever supporting the treaty), its supporters were simply told to vote "NO". Patricia McKenna was eventually sacked, even though the Nice Treaty was defeated. Not because she lied, but because she did so so shamlessly that she alienated much fringe political support and damaged her own party by being caught out so often in public debate spreading blatent disinformation. What has the Environment got to do with Nice? So much that the Greens will share a platform with the Religeous right and Sinn Feinn? Essentially there was no difference between them and the worst of other political parties in opportunism. Image it seems is only skin deep. (The rights and wrongs of the Nice treaty are irrelivent to what I am tryng to get accross).

    The Greens are tied inextricably to Anti-globalistaion and Green-peace and have hence adopted many of their issues. I support much of Green peace's work, but what have nuclear weapons got to do with Nuclear power? Yet one cannot condemn one without condemning the other. There is no debate. No choice. You are in or you are out. You cannot support Nice and be a member of the Green party. You cannot support Nuclear power and be a member of the greens.

    Green Peace, the Green Party(s), Amnesty International, Anti-Globalisation/Capitolism share much of their membership, certainly at grass roots and mid level. Considering that other luminaries such as Naoimi Klein are selected and propelled into the fore of the Anti-Globalisation movement on the basis of being popular in the media by publishing a book, Scary Spice would be an equally valid choice. Forget right or wrong, it simply cannot be healthy. It is akin to Margret Thatchers current influence in the Tory party and hence the lives of every English person even though she is no longer an elected figurehead. Voluntary street movements are having an influence on policy within democratic parties, movement that have used spin to justify violence repeatidly. I would liken the spin we have seen in the past to "anti-agreement " Unionists, who say "We cannot be held responsible for the consequences", an unfailing cal to action for Loyalist thugs, or "We have seen understandable anger", ie. speak to us nicely or it might happen again. An uncanny parrallel. Violence has NO place in a democratic society.

    Now lets cross from Anti-Globalistaion to Anti-capitolist. Since when are they the same thing? I do not support Globalistaion, but do realise the consequeces of no Globalistaion. But God forbid I should attempt to open my mouth, I am a capatolist after all, so I effectivly have nothing to contribute. Socialist Worker and the Greens in this country are our Anti-Capitolist voice and in the eyes of the media have it stitched up, you simply will not be asked for your opinion. Funnily enuogh they are also our "Anti-war" movement. Funny that.

    And since when is the Anti-Globalistaion movement Anti-war? I do support the war (for the sake of the Afghan people NOT America) and am a capitolist, so I am two times removed from the debate on Globalisation.

    My statement on the timing of Amnesties call for an inquiry is still valid and bears examination. The cross polinisation of people who regularly burn American flags with Amnesty, again cannot be healthy. Talks, already in progress are far from complete and have yet to get to the interim stage of forming a government. Before that is finalised (some way off) an inquiry would alienate the Tajik population and prevent the prospect of any sort of peace in that troubled country.

    As stand alone organistaions both Green Peace and Amnesty Internationl have done stirling work, but this "creeping unification" of platforms and views from close to and beyond their remitt points to a dim future for both these organistaions. They are either being influenced or infiltrated by people who lack vision or see the respective platforms of these organistaions as ammunition to be used to support other political aganda. That Human rights should be a weapon in this "Pan-Goodness" fronts arsenal is disturbing, deeply. Much of this is the Media's fault for not informing the public, but simply passing on the official line from those on high.

    The absolute lack of willingness to even consider this possiblity or the facts as they stand is simply another part of what I am talking about. Since when for instance is to question Amnesty International (a non-elected body) akin to supporting mass murder?

    I am first and foremost a democrat, yet the things I would like to belive in (Human rights and the environment) are slowley becomming the sole remitt of people I did not elect. Amnesties call for an inquiry may in itself not be wrong, but its certainly timing is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by Magwitch
    My statement on the timing of Amnesties call for an inquiry is still valid and bears examination.


    You have yet to show this. Amnesty have condemned the Taliban's actions and methodology pretty much since they came to power.

    We are now facing a changing of the guard. Amnesty recognises that war is a reality, and up until the fall of M-i-S has consitently taken the line that what is important to come out of this war is a settlement which puts an emphasis on human rights in the area.

    Please not - human rights are completely seperate to the Geneva Convention. This is important. It will factor in later.

    Now, M-i-S falls, and we hear about execution-style killings - which appear to be surrendered or captured Taliban soldiers being killed by the incoming NA. Amnesty called for an inquiry into human rights violations the same day that this story broke(according to Magwitch - again, I couldnt find a link on this one, but will take his word).

    Some days later, there is a revolt in a prison. Despite several people trotting out "eyewitness accounts" which "prove" the sequence of events, there is still much confusion as to what happened. However, on the same day that this story broke, Amnesty called for an investigation.

    In both cases, Amnesty has called for an investigation because there are reports of happenings which may be violations of human rights.

    There is not point calling for an investigation 2 weeks later, when there is nothing left to see. Investigations look at evidence, which needs to be fresh or preserved. Therefore, the most meaningful investigations are those called for immediately.

    I cannot see how they could have done otherwise in these situations. I will accept that these announcements may have given AI some political leverage somewhere, but I think that would be a secondary bonus - not the primary goal - for having requested these investigations.

    jc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,468 ✭✭✭Evil Phil


    The Greens and the anti-globalisation movement do not speak for Amnesty International. You might as well accuse A.I. of being the Socialist Workers Party ;)

    Sorry Magwitch but this is not a case of guilt by association, you have yet to offer the proof of your arguments. Comparing A.I. to the anti-globalisation movement is a little unfair, maybe they do share some membership but they are very different movements.

    If you want to put a public face on human rights movement you could use Mary Robinson's, that's what the UN did.

    Public face of Anti-Globalisation == stone throwing muppets.
    Public face of Human Rights == United Nations Commisoner for Human Rights.

    It's not based on a political agenda but compassion for you fellow person. I think most people are filled with a horrible feeling when they think about somebody being tortured, executed or imprisoned because they were the wrong colour or because they voted or were suspected of thinking the wrong things. That's what A.I's members, from grass roots to the very top, share with a lot of other movements, not just the greens and the anti-globalisation movement but the anti-landmine movement, the Curch of England, the Catholic Curch, the Labour Party, Fianna Fail, me, you, virtualy everybody who's reading this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Magwitch your position seems to be confusing not having a political agenda and having the wrong political agenda.

    What exactly were A.I supposed to do. If they had kept quite then you would have a reason to be annoyed with them. They saw a human rights violation and they spoke out about it. That is their “agenda”, to call to attention human rights abuses when ever and where ever they happen. How you see this as an anti-capitalist agenda is completely beyond me ( i guess you feel anti-capitalist care more about human rights than capitalist, which on that point we agree). The fact that it is embarrassing to American and the Northern Alliance (and by your logic capitalists everywhere...can't be a capitalist/anti-capitalist and not a member of every extreme crazy group associated with each side) is not the fault of A.I. If, on the other hand they kept quite about what happened, that would be exercising the most blatant political agenda (this time for American).

    You seem to be more annoyed that A.I don't have your political agenda. The whole definition of a non-political organisation is that they do not take sides. Don't complain when they don't takeyour side.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,468 ✭✭✭Evil Phil


    I got this from Amnesty today, if anybody is interested.
    Amnesty International is concerned for the safety of approximately 80 prisoners held
    by the United Front (commonly known as the Northern Alliance) at Shibarghan, Northern
    Afghanistan, as they may be at risk of torture or extrajudicial execution. The prisoners, eighteen of whom are said to be seriously injured, belonged to Taleban
    forces who had surrendered to the United Front at the besieged city of Kunduz, northern
    Afghanistan. On 25 November, violent fighting, which reportedly lasted a few days
    and left hundreds dead, broke out between Taleban prisoners and United Front guards
    at Qala-i-Jhangi prison, outside the city of Mazar-i Sharif. The circumstances surrounding the fighting inside Qala-i-Jhangi prison remain unclear,
    but reports indicate that some prisoners overpowered guards and seized firearms.
    United States air strikes were used against the Taleban prisoners and British and
    American special forces were also reportedly involved. Initial reports indicated that all those held at the Qala-i-Jhangi prison had been
    killed. However, on 1 December, approximately 80 Taleban emerged from the prison's
    basement after United Front forces regained control.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,617 ✭✭✭✭PHB


    Two wrongs make a right. Thats simply the logic here. I dont agree with it in the slightest, Just more pain and suffering for everyone. Taliban rebellion in afghanistan in 10 years headed by the sons of the solidiers killed. If people bothered to look at what causes the attacks instead of killing the people who support them, then the world might be a better place. Pity people dont think before they act


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,746 ✭✭✭pork99


    1. PHB - these prisoner were mostly not Afghans but foreign volunteers, they are far more lenient with Afghans who surrender. There goes your "rebellion in afghanistan in 10 years headed by the sons of the solidiers killed" scenario. Their sons are not in Afghanistan

    2. The Geneva Convention etc only covers those who have genuinely surrendered, not those who use a surrender as a cover for an attack.

    3 Northern Alliance as bad as the Taliban? At least they are not harbouring people whose aim is to murder you and everyone you know, neutral or not. In the long term this is a war for survival, I wonder were people concerned for the "human rights" of the Nazis 60 years ago?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭Gargoyle


    An excellent piece by Kevin Myers today with the relevant portion noted:
    By Kevin Myers
    Michael D. Higgins probably spoke for a lot of misguided Irish people with his recent Dáil outburst over the killings of captured Taliban prisoners at Mazar-e-Sharif - which merely shows that living within a protectorate can make the protected ones forget the reality which is thereby kept at bay. Posturing about neutrality, about the moral delinquencies of the US, especially in war - these are qualities most abundant in the polities which depend totally on the US for their defence, and traditionally none more so than this one.

    I don't know who Michael D.Higgins expected to take the surrender of the Taliban POWs who mutinied when they thought they could get away with it; I dare say he wasn't volunteering his own doughty services. It is - though no doubt he is aware of this - one of the usages of war that a soldier is allowed one surrender only, and if he or his colleagues employ that flag of surrender for military advantage, all may then be killed.


    Last resort

    Pleasant? No, it's not; but nothing about war is pleasant. War is the last resort, that point at which the rules which bind civilisation together are dissolved. All shared commandments are suspended, all common civilities abolished, all declared decencies dissolved. A threadbare fabric from the lush quilt of pre-war society is retained, only begrudgingly, and by prior agreement; and not using flags of surrender for military advantage is part of that thin material. The price to be paid for dishonouring the terms of such a surrender must be steep, and by advance agreement from all sides; for it is in everyone's interest that a surrender is what it purports to be, otherwise there is war without quarter, to the bloody, brutal end.

    I don't expect Michael D.Higgins to understand what I'm about to say, but what the US and the Northern Coalition did in chopping the mutinous Taliban prisoners to pieces was in the longer term merciful; in the longer term humane; and at the time was intellectually and morally irreproachable. Its logic is that future surrenders by Taliban not merely are delivered earlier, but are then honoured, with considerable savings in human life on all sides.

    (Yes, the removal of gold fillings from dead Taliban by Northern Alliance seems, well, de trop; but after all, these events occurred in Afghanistan, not in Galway West. How precisely would the noble TD have persuaded the Northern Alliance soldiers to behave by the civilised rules of his constituency when Afghan warriors have behaved according to the rather more vigorous code of Kandahar North Central since Alexander the Great's time?)

    I fear for the mental health of the TD for Galway West, and for the many who think like him, who believe that this earth is a kindly place: that if we are merciful to people, and pretend that there is no such thing as real evil, then we have no thing to fear, provided we send out food parcels to the hungry, and scold tyrants when they misbehave.


    Political will


    Wrong, wrong, wrong; one hundred per cent wrong, lethally wrong, totally wrong, terminally wrong. For we have to recognise that evil exists in different forms; when it is purely of the domestic variety, it is almost impossible to create the political will among outside powers to do anything about it. But when it is of the far rarer, expansionist and aggressive variety, the world has no choice but to join forces in fighting it and suppressing it.

    And this is why Michael D.Higgins is likely to be yanking at his shirt collar and puffing out his chest in coming times. Because this war is not ending in Afghanistan. It is a world war, unlike any we have seen before; and because its early stages were marked by appeasement under a Clinton regime, whose conduct - especially towards Somalia - appears more craven, more pusillanimous, more cowardly, more diseased by the day, the tentacles of world terrorism were allowed to grow in a way which would not have been permitted under more robust leadership.

    There is evidence, growing more compelling by the month, that the bin Laden network could be the creation of Saddam Hussein. It is not conclusive yet, to be sure: but that is the nature of terrorism. It hides behind the uncertainties which inevitably exist when the first part of any terrorist project is to conceal its existence. Moreover, terrorists depend on the bien pensant instincts of the liberal intelligentsia. These instincts place the most benign interpretations on the motives and deeds of terrorists, and the worst possible interpretation on policies enacted by democratic governments to oppose terrorism.


    War will spread


    The US will finish its business in Afghanistan, and will then shift its gaze elsewhere. It faces evil more complete, more absolute, more bizarre, than anything ever imagined in the most lurid pages of fiction. We are truly in the realm of discovery of new things, both in politics and human psychology, and in such a realm, it is best to stick with friends. The war will spread, and dictatorships elsewhere will feel the warm breeze of incoming cruise missiles and the all-seeing eye of Predator unmanned reconnaissance aircraft.

    A long and complex road lies ahead, one which will inevitably be littered with blunders and bloodshed. That is the nature of war. The Government (Brian Cowen in particular) has been strong and decisive in support of the US. Good. Let our policy remain so, no matter the stern trials ahead, and regardless of those who would attempt to fight the blazing inferno of Islamic fascism by lightly breaking a pious wind over it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by pork99
    2. The Geneva Convention etc only covers those who have genuinely surrendered, not those who use a surrender as a cover for an attack.

    If you read the article, Amnesty are concerned about those sho surrendered at the end of the fighting in the prison. They are therefore covered by the Geneva convention.
    3 Northern Alliance as bad as the Taliban? At least they are not harbouring people whose aim is to murder you and everyone you know, neutral or not. In the long term this is a war for survival, I wonder were people concerned for the "human rights" of the Nazis 60 years ago?


    For a start, people were concerned about the human rights of the Nazis. You may recall that there a small set of war-crimes tribunals carried out after the war to determine the guilt or innocence of the necessary parties.

    Secondly, Human Rights are independant of the Geneva Convention. They even have a seperate charter. Amnesty, you may be aware, is concerned about the protection of Human Rights issues.

    Thirdly, the atrocities of WW2 were the primary factor in bringing human rights issues to such prominence. Your own posting refrences the Geneva Convention - drawn in 1949 to try and remove the atrocities of WW2 from further war. The Human RIghts Charter similarly dates from 1948. The United Nations, as we know it today came into existence in October, 1945. Spotting a trend in these dates yet? Here's a hint - they all occur after the Nazi regime and WW2.

    Amnesty International itself is far newer, dating only from 1961.

    The fact that we may have ignored human rights in the past is no excuse for failing to do so today. In fact, the opposite is true. We are attempting to respeect human rights today because they have been so disregarded in the past - most notably in WW2.

    Your argument basically says "these men do not deserve human rights, because they are the bad guys". Amnesty begs to differ with you, as do I.

    jc


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Interesting article by Mr. Myers. I would take issue with a few points, though, especially the one Gargoyle highlighted :
    It is - though no doubt he is aware of this - one of the usages of war that a soldier is allowed one surrender only, and if he or his colleagues employ that flag of surrender for military advantage, all may then be killed.

    There is still no definitive story as to what happened in Mazar-e-Sharif. Differing versions have CIA operatives shooting prisoners in cold blood before the uprising, others have an arms locker being raided, and still more have smuggled arms and suicide grenadiers being used.

    Therefore, at the very least, the calls for an inquiry into the events should have been heeded.

    I would also suggest that "all may then be killed" is also incorrect. Should a group of 500 soldiers surrender, and at a later stage, one of them performs an act of "military advantage", should all 500 lives be forfeit? Is this humane or just, even in times of war? I think not.

    The two major documents governing human rights are the declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Convention. The latter appears to be the one most people have been dealing with (i.e. foreign nationals are not covered under it, and so on), so I would like to point out that nowhere in the Geneva Convention does it say that you can only surrender once. What it does say is that anyone who has laid down their arms is entitled to protection. No ifs, buts, or maybes. No "once only".

    I would question, therefore, where Mr. Myers has come up with his "usage of war". Is it mere tradition? If so, is tradition enough? If tradition is enough, then why are we attempting to remove barbaric "traditions" from nations around the world because they violate basic human rights.


    We do not know for defeinite what happened in the prison at M-e-S. There was an insurrection, and the NA were within their rights to quell that insurrection. However, the reasons for the insurrection should be determined. Reports of Taliban soldiers with their hands tied behind their backs, and their fronts riddled with bullets should be investigated. Much is unclear here, and we should not simply brush it under the carpet as Mr. Myers appears to have done.

    I would also point out that Amnesty were also asking about the safety of the 80-ish Taleban who surrendered at the end of the insurrection. If we wish to stick with the notion that you are only permitted one surrender, then this second surrendering should not have been accepted. Having accepted it, it should be incumbent on the NA to abide by it, which would mean no extrajudicial executions, no torture, and proper observance of these men's human rights.

    jc


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭Clintons Cat


    my two cents

    Firstly an enquiry would be a chance for the americans to exonerate themselves from blame,if the facts support their claims that the taliban had managed to smuggle large quantities of arms into captivity.then surely it is in every ones intrest,captors,captives and the onlooking world to discover how it was achieved in order to prevent it happening again In regions still to be taken.

    Secondly a quick browse of the amnesty or hrw boards will confirm that the abuses in the treatment of prisoners by both sides is fully documented.That dostams name is the one making the news is not just a matter of his past record but also that two of the most recent abuses occurred in areas taken/controlled by his troops.


    oh and merry christmas one and all


Advertisement