MYTH: Amnesty International is anti-American and pro-Al Qaeda

It's old news that Amnesty International is a highly politicized pressure group, but these latest accusations amount to pro-al Qaeda propaganda. A "human rights" group that can't distinguish between Stalin's death camps and detention centers for terrorists who kill civilians can't be taken seriously.  (Wall Street Journal, “Amnesty's 'Gulag' A "human rights" group's pro-al Qaeda propaganda,” Review & Outlook, 5/28/05)

 

Amnesty International declares war on the USA. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".  (Bill O’Reilly,  “Amnesty International Declares War on the USA,” Fox News, May 26, 2005)

 

The always reliable anti-American organization known as Amnesty International got into the United States-bashing act yesterday.  They made a statement that is quite a gem.  They came right out and accused us of running a gulag at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Really....they don't say.  (Neil Boortz, “Amnesty International,” Boortz.com, 5/26/05)

Reality

Let’s get this straight: the gulag comment was bad.  But once again, we're not going to let the loudmouth media obfuscate the blatant crimes of this administration by tarring another liberal scapegoat.

Guantanamo: bad.  Gulag: worse.

Guantanamo: Reality; actual wrongdoing.

Gulag comment: Inflated rhetoric.

To those of us that think that Amnesty International is a great organization – and who believe in its “vision …of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights …” --. recent comments by Amnesty Secretary General Ilene Khan that the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay has become the “gulag of our times” are a bit tough to swallow.

The gulag was a forced labor camp which housed political prisoners and other enemies of the Soviet state.  While Guantanamo has its problems, it is difficult for even the most progressive of progressive critics of George W. Bush to make a one-to-one comparison between the two prisons with a straight face.

With that said, two wrongs do not make a right (unless you happen to a right wing “fact checker”).  An over-the-top comment by the head of Amnesty International does not justify right wingers’ over-the-top attacks on Amnesty.  And, given Amnesty’s willingness to be critical of America’s enemies as well her allies, it is unreasonable to argue they have it in for the United States.  

Furthermore, while Guantanamo is not the gulag, it is no Malibu resort.  Khan’s hyperbole should not overshadow real concerns about Guantanamo.

With this out of the way, the right wing’s assertions about Amnesty are problematic. There is more than enough evidence of abuse of prisoners and poor conditions to justify concern. 

For instance:

Prisoners have testified that they were abused in Guantanamo.  With the Pentagon’s reluctance to release testimony it is difficult to assess whether they are telling the truth (the Pentagon says they were trained to lie).  The existence of the testimony does suggest that an international human rights group could have a good reason to investigate other than a supposed anti-American, pro-Al Qaeda agenda.

There has been much secrecy surrounding many aspects of U.S. operations in Guantanamo., such as the CIA’s special facility within the larger prison.   While this does not prove wrongdoing, it allows for legitimate suspicion.

Some prisoners are being held on an open-ended, indefinite basis. 

As to the question of whether Amnesty has an anti-American, pro-Al Qaeda bias: it is important to note that Amnesty is critical of almost every country in the world.  While, some may resent the fact that Amnesty chooses to be critical of both democratic and repressive regimes (suggesting a moral equivalency), it is hard to imagine that a group that was really out of get the U.S. would be so critical of its enemies:

Amnesty International’s 2005 Report cites human rights violations in 149 countries.

Amnesty has cited abuses in Iran, one of Bush’s “Axis of Evil” countries.  The introduction to its report on Iran:

Scores of political prisoners, including prisoners of conscience, continued to serve prison sentences imposed following unfair trials in previous years. Scores more were arrested in 2004, many in connection with press articles or publications both in print and on the Internet which were alleged to “endanger national security” or defame senior officials or religious precepts. Many of the families of those arrested also faced intimidation.

 

Independent human rights defenders were harassed. At least two individuals died in custody and 159 people were executed, including one minor. At least two of the 36 people who were flogged reportedly died following the implementation of the punishment; no investigations were carried out into these deaths. The true number of those executed or subjected to corporal punish.  (Amnesty International 2005 Report, Iran)

Amnesty has cited abuses in North Korea, another member of the “Axis of Evil.”  From the introduction to Amnesty’s report on North Korea:

The government continued to fail in its duty to uphold and protect the right to food, exacerbating the effects of the long-standing food crisis. Chronic malnutrition among children and urban populations, especially in the northern provinces, was widespread. Fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, association and movement, continued to be denied. Access by independent monitors continued to be severely restricted. There were reports of widespread political imprisonment, torture and ill-treatment, and of executions.  (Amnesty International 2005 Report, Iran)

Amnesty has even issued a report against human rights abuses in France:

Complaints about police violence and abuse rose sharply. Reports of ill-treatment by state agents, mainly police officers, showed that people of foreign origin were the predominant targets of abusive identity checks. Acts of racist violence, intimidation and vandalism were directed at members of Jewish and Muslim communities, and North African immigrants were the main focus of racist attacks in Corsica. Thousands of people took to the streets in November to protest against the high incidence of violence against women in general and, in particular, at the stoning to death of a young woman, Ghofrane Haddaoui, in Marseilles a month earlier. Conditions in prisons, as well as in holding centres for foreign nationals, deteriorated to below international standards. There were frequent reports that people had been physically ill-treated in holding areas and reception centres or during forcible deportation, and that unaccompanied children were detained in holding areas before being deported. (Amnesty International 2005 Report, Iran)

In short, what Republicans and conservatives have been doing with Amnesty is similar to media-bashing: they ignore their subjects’ entire body of work and focus only on actions which run counter to a right wing political agenda.  They are also diverting attention away from the real problems, by hyping anti-American phantoms. Does Amnesty’s reporting on U.S. human rights abuses make the U.S. look bad?  Yes.  But wouldn't a free country encourage that type of independent concern for individual rights? Amnesty's reporting about France, Iran, and North Korea make these countries look bad too.  Just maybe, Amnesty cares about Human Rights everywhere.

  

MYTH: Amnesty International was soft on Saddam Hussein

 

Amnesty International has been soft on Saddam Hussein, saying it does not support or oppose regime change in any part of the world.  (Bill O’Reilly,  “Amnesty International Declares War on the USA,” Fox News, May 26, 2005)

Oddly enough, Bill is distorting the truth. Hard to imagine as it is, Amnesty International did in fact condemn Saddam Hussein’s actual human rights violations. However, Amnesty International's  stated mission explains that: “AI is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.”

Amnesty needs to be neutral about all governments and regimes in order to maintain it’s ability to negotiate for better human rights in all countries.  It cannot successfully pressure a government to release its political prisoners if it has called for that same government to be overturned. 

As we’ve seen in the most recent brouhaha over Amnesty’s condemnation of Guantanamo., the appearance of partisanship against any government or country can undermine the organization’s public credibility.

As for how Amnesty felt about Hussein: the organization was very critical about its human rights abuses.  Here is the introduction to their 2002 report on Iraq:

Scores of people, including possible prisoners of conscience and armed forces officers suspected of planning to overthrow the government, were executed. Scores of suspected anti-government opponents, including people suspected of having contacts with opposition groups in exile, were arrested. The fate and whereabouts of most of those arrested, including those detained in previous years, remained unknown. Several people were given lengthy prison terms after grossly unfair trials before special courts. Torture and ill-treatment of political prisoners and detainees were systematic. The two Kurdish political parties controlling Iraqi Kurdistan detained prisoners of conscience, and armed political groups were reportedly responsible for abductions and killings.  (Amnesty International 2002 Report, Iraq)

Now, the report also mentioned that “Iraq remained under stringent economic sanctions imposed by UN Security Council resolutions since 1990 which reportedly resulted in severe hardship for the civilian population and a humanitarian crisis,” which Bill O’Reilly and company would probably find as being against American/British policy. 

So Amnesty criticized the Iraq government for its maltreatment of Iraqis and criticized the American/British-backed sanctions as well.  In sum, they were attempting to be fair and balanced, just like Fox News. So what's the problem?

MYTH: Women are not qualified for combat

 

History offers no evidence for the proposition that the assignment of women to military combat jobs is the way to win wars, improve combat readiness, or promote national security.

 

Women, on average, have only 60 percent of the physical strength of men, are about 6 inches shorter, and survive basic training only by the subterfuge of being graded on effort rather than on performance. These facts, self-evident to anyone who watches professional or Olympic sports competitions, are only some of the many sex differences confirmed by scholarly studies. (Phyllis Schlafly, “Military Off-base on Sending Women into Combat,” TownHall.com, 5/30/05)

Civilized nations do not subject women to combat violence. We sometimes don't have a choice about sending young men into war, but we do have a choice about young women. And we decided as a commission, in the majority, to say that, 'No, violence against women, we do not endorse that. We support women in the military, but we don't have to submit them to direct violence in combat.'  (Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, as quoted in: Al Pessin, Role of Women in US Military Gets Renewed Debate,” Voice of America, May 31, 2005)

Reality

Once again, members of the conservative movement have proven they are still living in the 12th century.

It should not be surprising to most Polianna readers that there is evidence which contradicts these stone age assertions of Phyllis “Wiiiillllmmmmaaaa!!!!” Schlalfy.  “A report by the US Army Institute of Environmental Medicine at Natick, MA, concluded that ‘when a woman is correctly trained, she can be as tough as any man.’” A senior analyst for the Army Institute commented: “You don't need testosterone to get strong.”

Explains The Center for Defense Information:

Without a doubt, being in the military is a physically demanding job that not everyone is fit to handle. Despite this, all experts agree that there are some women, although perhaps small in number, who have the physical strength and endurance to be soldiers (Army Times, July 29, 1996)   (Center for Defense Information, “Women in the Military: Combat Roles Considered)

It’s also worth noting that the Army is in the midst of a major recruitment crisis.  Yet, according to the Army “A House [of Representatives] measure aimed at keeping women out of combat would bar female soldiers from at least 21,925 Army jobs that are now open to them”

So not only are Schlalfy and others who are opposed women in the military incredibly sexist, they are also incredibly short-sided.  The last thing we need during a recruitment crisis is to rid ourselves of potential qualified recruits.

 

MYTH: Despite all the objections to John Bolton, he deserves confirmation.

 

The overriding point is that warmth generated by last week's deal did not extend to giving John Bolton an immediate up-or-down vote without going into Dodd's dubious complaints.  (Robert Novak, “Still brutish Senate,” Townhall.com, May 30, 2005)

While conservatives and Republicans continue to refuse beating the Bolton drum, we here at Polianna will keep reminding our readers that this stooge has no place in the UN. And why isn't Novak in prison?

Lest we forget, here are some of the other concerns about Bolton we’ve highlighted in our past debunkers:

• John Bolton “may have mishandled sensitive National Security Agency material.”
• Bolton has been accused of hiding information from Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.
• Republican Senator George Voinovich and a bipartisan group of 60 former ambassadors oppose Bolton’s nomination.
• Bolton has argued that the U.N. is only worthwhile to the U.S. when it serves our interests.  
• Bolton has suggested that the U.S. should be the only permanent member of the Security Council.    
• Bolton has also been accused of verbally harassing employees and threatening to fire those who disagree with him. 
• Bolton criticized and harassed our allies.  
• Bolton was involved in the Niger/Uranium claim that became part of the President’s State of the Union speech in 2003.