Replies

Just a couple of points to illustrate how worthless this 'article' is...

The author writes:

Last week, Britain's Foreign Office released a brief report on human rights in Iraq. Drawing heavily on Amnesty International research, the report told of the estimated 100,000 Kurds Saddam Hussein killed in 1987-88; the estimated 5,000 killed and 10,000 injured by chemical weapons used against the Kurd town of Halabja; the systematic torture and mass killings of many thousands of prisoners; and the widespread torture and rape of women in government custody. Saddam's regime, the report said, shows a "cruel and callous regard for human life and suffering." One would think such a report would receive standing ovations from human rights groups. Wrong. Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International, called the report "a cold and calculated manipulation of the work of human rights activists."

Well... the British Foreign Office is currently controlled by the SOCIALIST British Labour party, a LEFT party.

Moreover, Amnesty International have VERY good reasons to be suspicious when a government (a SOCIALIST government) suddenly embraces ONE of its reports. After all, the Brits seem to have no problems whatsoever with similar or worse human rights abuses in many other contries, such as China.

And finally, this little scribe, so quick to bash Amnesty International because it does not oppenly support an Iraq invasion (???), seems to have no idea that until only 12 short years ago, AI was often the ONLY hope for political prisoners behind bars, behind the Iron Curtain. It defended political prisoners in China at a time when Nixon and Dr. Strangelove Kissinger were 'engaging' there and political prisoners all throughout the Soviet block while American and the West were busy playing the 'detente' farce.

Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International, called the report "a cold and calculated manipulation of the work of human rights activists."

I wonder what is the basis for this statement.

The quotations from the article seem to simply present the statistics of Saddam's brutality, which are supplied by AI.

There's not much room for spin when counting dead by the thousand. And I'm not sure what she's comlaining about.

I think you make the point. Sure, western governments have often behaved badly and looked the other way when tyrannical governments have oppressed their people. But the perfect is the enemy of the good. Why should Amnesty Internation object if for once the British Labour government is doing the right thing?

So far, Bush's invasion of Afghanistan has done more good than clinton's much-applauded invasion of Haiti and his bombing of Belgrade. So why do they criticize Bush and glow with approval over clinton?

Probably we wouldn't be doing anything about Iraq if it hadn't been for 9/11. That doesn't mean that the average Iraqi won't be better off when we have deposed Saddam.