"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Amnesty International Condemns U.S.

There is no doubt that it (the war on terror) has given a new lease on life to old-fashioned repression - Irene Khan, Amnesty International secretary general
According to CNN:
Amnesty International "called on the United Nations to address abuses in Darfur, where violence has killed more than 180,000 people and displaced 2.5 million since 2003. Many of the atrocities are blamed on the so-called Janjaweed, a disparate group of Arab militiamen allegedly backed by the Sudanese government."

And that, according to Irene Kahn, Secretary General of Amnesty International, "(The United States) has basically mortgaged its moral authority on the streets of Fallujah and Baghdad -- and lost moral authority to speak on this issue."
Darfur is an issue that should be addressed. Darfur, however, is not the fault of the U.S.; a country which has no "moral authority" according to those in the international community because it has taken on something the world wishes to ignore. Interesting that the U.S. can be accused of something, yet the majority of the planet can condemned the U.S.. Perhaps the world might take care of Darfur itself - check with the U.N., they're good at talking too.

If the United States has "mortgaged its moral authority," why go to it for assistance? Isn't it bereft of any morality if it skirts international law with its secret European interrogation locations, Gitmo Bay and it's killing of terrorists, which denies them their right to practice religion or government as they deem appropriate?

From one side of their mouths, AI condemns. From the other, it wants attention, money and assistance.

According to CNN, Irene Kahn said regarding the "increasing brutality of terrorist and militant attacks is:
a "bitter reminder that the 'war on terror' is failing and will continue to fail until human rights and human security are given precedence over narrow national security interests"
Is it failing? In the short term, perhaps that is how it appears, given the selection of information reported by the msm. Even without the msm's selective tactics for profit and viewership/readership, Iraq might seem to be failing. Might that not be because we expect immediate returns on our actions?

How does Ms. Kahn suggest the U.S. or any other nation for that matter, attend to the issue of "human security?" Or is her definition of "human security" hot meals and a roof over our heads? Amnesty International ignores various indicators to what is at stake as it accuses the U.S. of doing the same.


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks