Is the US the biggest human rights abuser?
Arthur
If you believe Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (HRW) you might
think so.
As Janet Albrechtsen in:
Soldiers of terror don't have rights
By Janet Albrechtsen
February 13, 2002 The Australian says:
"In its latest annual survey, Human Rights Watch spends more time lambasting
the US than any other country: ``Washington stands out because its
resistance to human rights has been most fundamental.''"
Yet, "Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have not, on a single
occasion, called the vicious acts of September 11 by their rightful name:
terrorism".
Do human rights organsations expect to be taken seriously?
The UN refugee body regularly criticizes the USA and Australia and yet we
haven't heard of any criticisms of Asian nations who generally don't take
any refugees or of the actions and policies in Malaysia where illegal
immigrants are to be whipped.
Australia is one of only a handful of nations that take refugees and yet
Australia is criticized? Why don't they criticize the rest of the world, the
vast majority of the world's nations that are not involved in refugee
resettlement programs?
Why are they silent on these matters?
We also hear often about the inhumane treatement of prsioners at Guantanamo
Bay and yet as reproted the USA is entirely right in not classifying the
prisoners as prisoners of war.
As Janet Albrechtsen notes:
"Article 4 of the Geneva Convention says POW status arises where soldiers
wear insignia, are subject to a chain of command, carry their weapons openly
and engage in combat according to the laws and customs of the law.
Al-Qa'ida terrorists such as Hicks clearly fail these tests. They would be
the first to admit they fight outside the recognised rules of war and this
was confirmed when they flew hijacked commercial airliners into the World
Trade Centre and the Pentagon. But the writing was on the wall before
September 11".
"In 1998, bin Laden declared: ``To kill the Americans and their allies _
civilians and military _ is an individual duty for every Muslim.'' Two years
earlier, Osama bin Laden issued a ``Declaration of War Against the
Americans''. Note that war was declared on the people, not the state".
"Tiresome details like these haven't stopped the growing chorus of complaint
about the treatment of prisoners at Camp X-Ray from British tabloid
newspapers, the German Foreign Minister, the Netherlands and the generally
disdainful French; and the loudest howls from human rights groups like the
UN Human Rights Commission, the Red Cross, Amnesty International and that
leader in the field, Human Rights Watch, which believe that the application
of human rights is inherently beneficial in building a ``better world''.
But so misguided is their belief, they spend more time criticising the US
reaction to terrorism than terrorism itself".
See:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,3764409%255E75
83,00.html
El Diablo
"Arthur" <fae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a4dju9$fjn$1...@news1.kornet.net...
>
>
> If you believe Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International (HRW) you
might
> think so.
>
> As Janet Albrechtsen in:
>
> Soldiers of terror don't have rights
> By Janet Albrechtsen
> February 13, 2002 The Australian says:
>
> "In its latest annual survey, Human Rights Watch spends more time
lambasting
> the US than any other country: ``Washington stands out because its
> resistance to human rights has been most fundamental.''"
>
> Yet, "Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have not, on a single
> occasion, called the vicious acts of September 11 by their rightful name:
> terrorism".
>
> Do human rights organsations expect to be taken seriously?
>
> The UN refugee body regularly criticizes the USA and Australia and yet we
> haven't heard of any criticisms of Asian nations who generally don't take
> any refugees or of the actions and policies in Malaysia where illegal
> immigrants are to be whipped.
Because asian countries are not democratic and don't preach freedom.
If you preech democracy, freedom, advanced culture, etc, then you
should pratice these values.
Surely you undersand this, don't you?
>
> Australia is one of only a handful of nations that take refugees and yet
> Australia is criticized? Why don't they criticize the rest of the world,
the
> vast majority of the world's nations that are not involved in refugee
> resettlement programs?
>
>
>
> Why are they silent on these matters?
>
> We also hear often about the inhumane treatement of prsioners at
Guantanamo
> Bay and yet as reproted the USA is entirely right in not classifying the
> prisoners as prisoners of war.
But Bush stated he is going to classify taliban fighters as POW's.
Which news do you listen to?
If the US can't handle terrorism, then it shouldn't pratice it.
Remember what happened in Chile? the CIA?
Do you want me to list all the terrorist activities of the CIA in the past,
including the killings of civilians? Do you know about them? I'm sure you
do.
> See:
>
>
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,3764409%255E75
> 83,00.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Arthur
"El Diablo" <eldi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Sdta8.24906$Zu6.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Many Asian nations are democratic and still have unambiguously racist
policies in relation to immigration and citizenship, suffrage and property
ownership. They also refuse refugees other than those who are racially
similar.
>
> If you preech democracy, freedom, advanced culture, etc, then you
> should pratice these values.
> Surely you undersand this, don't you?
Indeed, and your point is?
>
>
> >
> > Australia is one of only a handful of nations that take refugees and yet
> > Australia is criticized? Why don't they criticize the rest of the world,
> the
> > vast majority of the world's nations that are not involved in refugee
> > resettlement programs?
> >
> >
> >
> > Why are they silent on these matters?
> >
> > We also hear often about the inhumane treatement of prsioners at
> Guantanamo
> > Bay and yet as reproted the USA is entirely right in not classifying the
> > prisoners as prisoners of war.
>
> But Bush stated he is going to classify taliban fighters as POW's.
> Which news do you listen to?
Is this a significant matter? How does this affect the issue at hand? The
question was about the lack of consistency and of the hypocrisy of
international humans rights organizations.
Yeah, the USA has behaved abominably in the past. I have no argument about
that. But international human rights agencies have acted hypocritically and
inconsistently. If they are unable to make consistent moral pronouncements,
then their credibility will ,as it is, suffer. This is my point.
>
> Do you want me to list all the terrorist activities of the CIA in the
past,
> including the killings of civilians? Do you know about them? I'm sure you
> do.
Maybe, not all of them, but about some of them. This doesn't excuse
hypocrisy on the part of HRW and Amnesty.
>
>
> > See:
> >
> >
>
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,3764409%255E75
> > 83,00.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Kate Orman
> Soldiers of terror don't have rights
> By Janet Albrechtsen
> February 13, 2002 The Australian says:
>
> "In its latest annual survey, Human Rights Watch spends more time lambasting
> the US than any other country: ``Washington stands out because its
> resistance to human rights has been most fundamental.''"
>
> Yet, "Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have not, on a single
> occasion, called the vicious acts of September 11 by their rightful name:
> terrorism".
I don't know if that's true, and I'm not sure if it matters, frankly.
What
I do know is that Amnesty International absolutely condemned the
horror of
September 11, in a document that opens with a quote calling the
attacks
"terrorism":
http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/ACT300682001?OpenDocument
As did Human Rights Watch, who specifically refer to the crime as
"terrorism" - sorry, Janet:
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/09/ny-091201.htm
It's clear from these groups' statements that they will criticise
anyone
who perpetrates human rights abuses, whatever their background. The US
is
no more allowed to ignore human rights than the Taliban.
Albrechtsen's article seems to want to excuse the US for ignoring
human rights - exactly what these two groups fear will happen. For
example, Human Rights Watch's 2002 report states:
"The September 11 attacks were antithetical to the values of human
rights.
Indeed, it is the body of international human rights and humanitarian
law--the limits placed on permissible conduct-- that explains why
these
attacks were not legitimate acts of war or politics. [...] As many of
the
world's governments join the fight against al- Qaeda, they face a
fundamental choice. They must decide whether this battle provides an
opportunity to reaffirm human rights principles or a new reason to
ignore
them."
That report is available here:
> Do human rights organsations expect to be taken seriously?
>
> The UN refugee body regularly criticizes the USA and Australia and yet we
> haven't heard of any criticisms of Asian nations who generally don't take
> any refugees or of the actions and policies in Malaysia where illegal
> immigrants are to be whipped.
Since our media generally doesn't report on UNHCR criticism of other
countries, this could create the false impression the UN only
criticises
Australia. That's far from the truth, as a brief visit to www.unhcr.ch
will confirm.
It always disturbs me when people try to shift the spotlight from
Australia's actions by complaining that other countries are worse. We
should be setting a world standard, not whinging whenever someone has
the temerity to criticise us.
Cheers,
- Kate Orman
El Diablo
Well they call themselves democratic. But in reality they are not.
>
>
> >
> > If you preech democracy, freedom, advanced culture, etc, then you
> > should pratice these values.
> > Surely you undersand this, don't you?
>
>
> Indeed, and your point is?
My point is nations like the US and Australia should be leaders in
setting standards, not whinging about how the UN doesn't critisize
other nations. We should be setting an example for all other nations,
if we believe in democratic values and freedom.
Other nations will then follow, and they wont have any alibis.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Australia is one of only a handful of nations that take refugees and
yet
> > > Australia is criticized? Why don't they criticize the rest of the
world,
> > the
> > > vast majority of the world's nations that are not involved in refugee
> > > resettlement programs?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Why are they silent on these matters?
> > >
> > > We also hear often about the inhumane treatement of prsioners at
> > Guantanamo
> > > Bay and yet as reproted the USA is entirely right in not classifying
the
> > > prisoners as prisoners of war.
> >
> > But Bush stated he is going to classify taliban fighters as POW's.
> > Which news do you listen to?
>
>
> Is this a significant matter? How does this affect the issue at hand? The
> question was about the lack of consistency and of the hypocrisy of
> international humans rights organizations.
You said the USA is entirely right in not classifying the prisoners at
Guantanamo as POW's.
I'm saying they are being classified as POW's, which is right.
They can only do so much in countries like Zimbawe.
A dictator is not going to listen.
But if the western world sets an example there will be a better chance
that countries like Zimbawe will listen. And they wont have any excuses.
Arthur
Well there are possibly degrees of democracy. Some on this newsgroup say
that anything short of direct democracy is not true democracy. Many Asian
nations despite definite limitations son suffrage, are among the few nation
son the planet that do allow for the change of\governments via relatively
free elections.
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > If you preech democracy, freedom, advanced culture, etc, then you
> > > should pratice these values.
> > > Surely you undersand this, don't you?
> >
> >
> > Indeed, and your point is?
>
> My point is nations like the US and Australia should be leaders in
> setting standards, not whinging about how the UN doesn't critisize
> other nations.
Geez, don't you think it's unfair that nations that have in relative terms
such excellent records as Australia are seen to be singled out for
condemnation.
We should be setting an example for all other nations,
> if we believe in democratic values and freedom.
We are setting an example, but other nations won't smarten up if they see
those nations which do have good records being singled out for condemnation.
>
> Other nations will then follow, and they wont have any alibis.
Other nations won't follow when they see that no recognition is given to
ethical and compassionate behavior.
And if they relied on the information form the UN , they wouldn't even know
that countries have good policies. They would think that such nations as the
USA and Australia have appalling records.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Australia is one of only a handful of nations that take refugees and
> yet
> > > > Australia is criticized? Why don't they criticize the rest of the
> world,
> > > the
> > > > vast majority of the world's nations that are not involved in
refugee
> > > > resettlement programs?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why are they silent on these matters?
> > > >
> > > > We also hear often about the inhumane treatement of prsioners at
> > > Guantanamo
> > > > Bay and yet as reproted the USA is entirely right in not classifying
> the
> > > > prisoners as prisoners of war.
> > >
> > > But Bush stated he is going to classify taliban fighters as POW's.
> > > Which news do you listen to?
> >
> >
> > Is this a significant matter? How does this affect the issue at hand?
The
> > question was about the lack of consistency and of the hypocrisy of
> > international humans rights organizations.
>
> You said the USA is entirely right in not classifying the prisoners at
> Guantanamo as POW's.
>
> I'm saying they are being classified as POW's, which is right.
But what relevance is this?
If the USA is not legally obliged to classify them as POW's but still does
so, then this points to the commitment of the USA to human rights and not
the opposite.
They can come out and publicly make statements. Otherwise they'll lose
credibility as in fact is occurring now.
> A dictator is not going to listen.
But the rest of the world might.
>
> But if the western world sets an example there will be a better chance
> that countries like Zimbawe will listen. And they wont have any excuses.
Not if that example is constantly derided by human rights organizations.
Greg
Arthur wrote:
They have never been guilty of assassinating a popularly elected leader however.
Arthur
"Kate Orman" <kor...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:a7ca8b81.02021...@posting.google.com...
> "Arthur" <fae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<a4dju9$fjn$1...@news1.kornet.net>...
>
> > Soldiers of terror don't have rights
> > By Janet Albrechtsen
> > February 13, 2002 The Australian says:
> >
> > "In its latest annual survey, Human Rights Watch spends more time
lambasting
> > the US than any other country: ``Washington stands out because its
> > resistance to human rights has been most fundamental.''"
> >
> > Yet, "Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have not, on a
single
> > occasion, called the vicious acts of September 11 by their rightful
name:
> > terrorism".
>
> I don't know if that's true, and I'm not sure if it matters, frankly.
> What
> I do know is that Amnesty International absolutely condemned the
> horror of
> September 11, in a document that opens with a quote calling the
> attacks
> "terrorism":
>
> http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/recent/ACT300682001?OpenDocument
In the whole page the only use of the word "terroism" and that is in a
quotation form Koffi Anann.
No where does Amnesty describe the events as terrorism.
>
> As did Human Rights Watch, who specifically refer to the crime as
> "terrorism" - sorry, Janet:
>
> http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/09/ny-091201.htm
>
> It's clear from these groups' statements that they will criticise
> anyone
> who perpetrates human rights abuses, whatever their background. The US
> is
> no more allowed to ignore human rights than the Taliban.
Yes, thet say:
"There are people and governments in the world who believe that in the
struggle against terrorism, ends always justify means. But that is also the
logic of terrorism. Whatever the response to this outrage, it must not
validate that logic. Rather, it must uphold the principles that came under
attack yesterday, respecting innocent life and international law. That is
the way to deny the perpetrators of this crime their ultimate victory".
Here they are being far form specific as to which governments and which
terrorism.
Note, that they do not say the avents of Sep 11 are terrorism.
Moreover, note that in criticisng terrorism, which they have not
specifically said describes the events of Sep.11, they are also critcising
the USA as also being involved in terrorism becasue , as they say, "There
are people and governments in the world who believe that in the struggle
against terrorism, ends always justify means. But that is also the logic of
terrorism".
A pretty devious statement , don't you think? Certainly it is not an
unambiguous description of the events of Sep 11 as terrorism and certainly
it is not an endorsement of the efforts of the USA to fight terrorism. In
fact, it seems to want to imply that the US is a terrorist state.
It didn't confirm such a belief for me; in fact, what I read confirmed the
view that the UN body has a different set of standards based on nationality
and race.
Just recently Malaysia has instituted policies fir the whipping of illegal
immigrants and the specifying of different jobs as appropriate to different
races and yet in the press releases of the UN body not a mention is made of
this as far as I could find under the entry for Malaysia. But for Australia
!!, there is a plethora of publications.
>
> It always disturbs me when people try to shift the spotlight from
> Australia's actions by complaining that other countries are worse. We
> should be setting a world standard, not whinging whenever someone has
> the temerity to criticise us.
>
> Cheers,
> - Kate Orman
Cheers
Arthur
Kate Orman
The question: do human rights groups and the UN unfairly criticise
Australia for its treatment of refugees while failing to criticise
other
countries? Or, as Arthur puts it bluntly, does the UN High Commission
for
Refugees have "a different set of standards based on nationality and
race"?
> Just recently Malaysia has instituted policies fir the whipping of illegal
> immigrants and the specifying of different jobs as appropriate to different
> races
Just quickly, here's a news item on that policy:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/2002/02/07/FFXTDU40CXC.html
> and yet in the press releases of the UN body not a mention is made of
> this as far as I could find under the entry for Malaysia. But for Australia
> !!, there is a plethora of publications.
Although Malaysia's new policy on illegal migrant workers is clearly a
violation of human rights, and has been condemned by human rights
groups (along with other abuses such as censorship, prisoners of
conscience, and ill-treatment of prisoners) it may not fall under the
UNHCR's aegis since the workers are not refugees.
So let's get back to the refugee issue. The fact is, the UNHCR has
been trying to get permission to visit Malaysia's refugee camps for
years. For example, see:
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/asia/malaysia.html
How is that different or better than their request to visit our camps?
A search for "Malaysia" at the UNHCR Web site turns up criticisms of
that country's treatment of refugees, such as the deportation of
Indonesian asylum seekers, as well as the demands to inspect the
camps.
How is that different or better than UN criticisms of Australia's
refugee
policy?
There's no sign that Australia has been unfairly singled out by human
rights groups or by the UN. The real problem is that when we *are*
criticised, we try to shift the spotlight onto others, and hide in the
dark! (Look at One Nation's 8/2 press release moaning about Ireland,
India, and Malaysia. Puh-leez.)
btw, with even recognised refugees being expelled by Malaysia, I hope
we won't hear any more complaints that refugees who passed through
Kuala Lumpur on their way here should have got off the plane and
stayed there!
Cheers,
- Kate Orman
Greg
Arthur wrote:
Not at all. I understand what they're trying to say and why they express it the
way they do. Why can't you? Don't focus on the absence of one word.
> Certainly it is not an
> unambiguous description of the events of Sep 11 as terrorism and certainly
> it is not an endorsement of the efforts of the USA to fight terrorism. In
> fact, it seems to want to imply that the US is a terrorist state.
They have had their moments.
Or is that "sensitive" to to nationality and race. Remember the perspective of
the UN gives them no choice but to to be all things to all people. They don't
have the luxury, as you do, to sit anonymously at home making whatever
pronouncements they wish. The UN is a potential target for terrorism itself.
Kevin V. Russell
www.soaw.org
see for yourself how in the name of adavancing the cause of "freedom", the
yanks support fascist insurrection just about everywhere in latin america.
Ronny Ray gun was NEVER called to account over Iran Contra and that was a
REAL scandal, not a sexual peccadillo like the lewinsky scandal.