Amnesty International - Sucking up to supporters of Terror

[barney]

What the hell is this thread going on about Goober?!

A disgruntled member of AI's staff openly condemns here employer and on top of it all bases it on her own opinion and nothing more. Anybody on earth would have canned her butt for that and likely also sued for damages!

This reminds me of when Noam Chomsky allowed a passage from a Holocaust-denier to be quoted in the opening of one of his books as a testament to the meaning of free speech; he got all sorts of heat for this because people thought he was promoting the author's views. People just couldn't understand the point: free speech means ANY speech, even though we may hate what's being said.

Same thing here: people cannot understand that this is about human rights, ALL human rights, regardless of whose rights.

And this isn't even that contentious; it's pretty much fact that Guantanemo prisoners are having their human rights violated.

As far as the international or US law is concerned, Begg is as innocent as you or I, regardless of the views that he and his associates may or may not have (which btw would be the product of having been brought up in a chauvinistic religious environment).

There is absolutely no evidence that AI has done anything wrong. All they've done is uphold the organization's principles (i.e. protecting human rights regardless of other factors).

Underlying theme: we respect people's human rights, but only when it's the right people.

So much web-space would be saved if people just learned the meaning of objectivity.

 

[Goober]

What the hell is this thread going on about Goober?!

A disgruntled member of AI's staff openly condemns here employer and on top of it all bases it on her own opinion and nothing more. Anybody on earth would have canned her butt for that and likely also sued for damages!

This reminds me of when Noam Chomsky allowed a passage from a Holocaust-denier to be quoted in the opening of one of his books as a testament to the meaning of free speech; he got all sorts of heat for this because people thought he was promoting the author's views. People just couldn't understand the point: free speech means ANY speech, even though we may hate what's being said.

Same thing here: people cannot understand that this is about human rights, ALL human rights, regardless of whose rights.

And this isn't even that contentious; it's pretty much fact that Guantanemo prisoners are having their human rights violated.

As far as the international or US law is concerned, Begg is as innocent as you or I, regardless of the views that he and his associates may or may not have (which btw would be the product of having been brought up in a chauvinistic religious environment).

There is absolutely no evidence that AI has done anything wrong. All they've done is uphold the organization's principles (i.e. protecting human rights regardless of other factors).

Underlying theme: we respect people's human rights, but only when it's the right people.

So much web-space would be saved if people just learned the meaning of objectivity.

Barney

This is much more than a disgruntled worker bee - 20 years, highly respected individual, expert on the Islamic Right -
Do some checking - reading her letter -

HRW is the US went thu a similar situation though it did not get much media attention.

When you align yourself as an organization that protects Human Rights with the Islamic Nut Bars - what do you think will happen -
I have nothing but the utmost respect for AI but this is beyond the pale -

 

[YukonJack]

This is nothing new. AI was always the most devoted water-carrier of the Soviet Union, China and Cuba.

 

[Goober]

This is nothing new. AI was always the most devoted water-carrier of the Soviet Union, China and Cuba.

YJ
Nothing constructive from you - Read up on AI before you spout your normal ill informed views - Now that would ne a surprise to all -
That said AI does great work and many at great risk to their live and of their families - do you deny that?

 

[barney]

When you align yourself as an organization that protects Human Rights with the Islamic Nut Bars - what do you think will happen -
I have nothing but the utmost respect for AI but this is beyond the pale -

Islamic nutbars aside, AI hasn't officially aligned itself with anyone nor have they showed favouritism toward this org (being in the spotlight of current events isn't the same thing). The whole point is that the views of the defended--whatever those views may be--are irrelevant.

That said, the detainees at Guantanimo are not convicted terrorists so suggesting that introducing them into society--only possible were they to NOT be terrorists--would expose us all to more terrorism isn't a valid argument. (And Saghal isn't making that claim anyway--only some media are.)

 

[Goober]

Barney

We have differing views on her letter

Statement by Gita Sahgal07-Feb-10

This morning the Sunday Times published an article about Amnesty International’s association with groups that support the Taliban and promote Islamic Right ideas. In that article, I was quoted as raising concerns about Amnesty’s very high profile associations with Guantanamo-detainee Moazzam Begg.

I felt that Amnesty International was risking its reputation by associating itself with Begg, who heads an organization, Cageprisoners, that actively promotes Islamic Right ideas and individuals.

Within a few hours of the article being published, Amnesty had suspended me from my job.A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when a great organisation must ask: if it lies to itself, can it demand the truth of others?

For in defending the torture standard, one of the strongest and most embedded in international human rights law, Amnesty International has sanitized the history and politics of the ex-Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg and completely failed to recognize the nature of his organisation Cageprisoners.

The tragedy here is that the necessary defence of the torture standard has been inexcusably allied to the political legitimization of individuals and organisations belonging to the Islamic Right.

I have always opposed the illegal detention and torture of Muslim men at Guantanamo Bay and during the so-called War on Terror. I have been horrified and appalled by the treatment of people like Moazzam Begg and I have personally told him so. I have vocally opposed attempts by governments to justify ‘torture lite’.

The issue is not about Moazzam Begg’s freedom of opinion, nor about his right to propound his views: he already exercises these rights fully as he should. The issue is a fundamental one about the importance of the human rights movement maintaining an objective distance from groups and ideas that are committed to systematic discrimination and fundamentally undermine the universality of human rights. I have raised this issue because of my firm belief in human rights for all.

I sent two memos to my management asking a series of questions about what considerations were given to the nature of the relationship with Moazzam Begg and his organisation, Cageprisoners. I have received no answer to my questions.

There has been a history of warnings within Amnesty that it is inadvisable to partner with Begg. Amnesty has created the impression that Begg is not only a victim of human rights violations but a defender of human rights. Many of my highly respected colleagues, each well-regarded in their area of expertise has said so. Each has been set aside.

As a result of my speaking to the Sunday Times, Amnesty International has announced that it has launched an internal inquiry. This is the moment to press for public answers, and to demonstrate that there is already a public demand including from Amnesty International members, to restore the integrity of the organisation and remind it of its fundamental principles.

I have been a human rights campaigner for over three decades, defending the rights of women and ethnic minorities, defending religious freedom and the rights of victims of torture, and campaigning against illegal detention and state repression.

I have raised the issue of the association of Amnesty International with groups such as Begg’s consistently within the organisation. I have now been suspended for trying to do my job and staying faithful to Amnesty’s mission to protect and defend human rights universally and impartially.

 

[earth_as_one]

The issue here is really, "Why is this an issue?"

rebuttal to previous

Amnesty International on its work with Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners
11 February 2010

There has been a lot of controversy in the media surrounding Amnesty International’s work with Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners, in light of statements by Gita Sahgal, a Amnesty International staff member.

Contrary to Gita Sahgal’s assertions to the media, she was not suspended from Amnesty International for raising these issues internally. In fact we actively welcome vigorous internal debate. Up to now we have maintained confidentiality in line with our policy but wanted to correct this misrepresentation. This is not a reflection on the organisation’s respect for her work as a women’s rights activist and does not undermine the work she has done over the last few years as the head of Amnesty International’s gender unit.

Our work with Moazzam Begg has focused exclusively on highlighting the human rights violations committed in Guantánamo Bay and the need for the US government to shut it down and either release or put on trial those who have been held there. Moazzam Begg was one of the first detainees released by the US without charge, and has never been charged with any terrorist-related offence or put on trial.

When President Obama promised to close Guantánamo, Amnesty International hoped that we could wind down our campaign and focus more broadly on human rights abuses related to security and terrorism. However, as that promise remains unmet, Amnesty International continues to work with Moazzam Begg and other former detainees to ask European governments to accommodate those who cannot be returned to their country of citizenship without risk of torture or ill-treatment.

In this complex and polarised world we at Amnesty International face the challenge of communicating clearly the scope of our work with individuals and groups. Amnesty International champions and continues to champion Moazzam Begg’s rights as a former detainee at Guantánamo. He speaks about his own views and experiences, not Amnesty International’s. And Moazzam Begg has never used a platform he shared with Amnesty to speak against the rights of others.

Amnesty International has a long history of demanding justice – in the case of our Counter Terror with Justice Campaign we called for both an end to human rights abuses at Guantánamo and other locations, and called for those detained there to be brought to justice, in fair trials that respected due process.

However, our work for justice and human rights spans a far wider range of issues than counter-terrorism and security. Amnesty International has done considerable research on the Taleban and campaigns to stop violence against women and to promote women’s equality. We continue to take a strong line against abuses by religiously-based insurgent groups and/or governments imposing religious strictures, Islamic or otherwise, in violation of human rights law. Sometimes the people whose rights we defend may not share each others views – but they all have human rights, and all human rights are worth defending.

Amnesty International on its work with Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners

From the first post in this thread by Goober:

Amnesty International has persisted in whoring itself out to Cage Prisoners, a front for Taliban enthusiasts and al Qaida devotees that fraudulently presents itself a human rights group.

Does anyone agree with Goober?

 

[barney]

Barney

We have differing views on her letter

I don't see why; Saghal doesn't say anything formally condemning Begg or AI, she just says that she doesn't agree with AI's supposed alignment with Begg and that it will make AI look bad.

Her main point of maintaining objective distance is unclear because this apparently contradicts AI's ethos which is to be neutral, meaning non-discrimination. There doesn't seem to be any reason to think AI's relationship to Begg isn't limited to informing of human rights abuses at Guantanamo and bringing an end to them (any other motivations for Begg or Cage Prisoners are irrelevant so long as AI doesn't promote them - no indication that they are).

There is a dangerous precedent in doing what Saghal is suggesting in that it brings up the issue of where to draw the line. That is probably AI's greatest fear because it's a potential slippery slope scenario (i.e. if you start to choose whom you will associate with based on views, you run the risk of becoming biased). And that could prove fatal to AI.

Thus far, what is going on here is too vague to really make anything of it.

(Although I have to say that she really could've given the story to a better paper than the Times, hardly a bastion of unbiased integrity.)

 

[Goober]

I don't see why; Saghal doesn't say anything formally condemning Begg or AI, she just says that she doesn't agree with AI's supposed alignment with Begg and that it will make AI look bad.

Her main point of maintaining objective distance is unclear because this apparently contradicts AI's ethos which is to be neutral, meaning non-discrimination. There doesn't seem to be any reason to think AI's relationship to Begg isn't limited to informing of human rights abuses at Guantanamo and bringing an end to them (any other motivations for Begg or Cage Prisoners are irrelevant so long as AI doesn't promote them - no indication that they are).

There is a dangerous precedent in doing what Saghal is suggesting in that it brings up the issue of where to draw the line. That is probably AI's greatest fear because it's a potential slippery slope scenario (i.e. if you start to choose whom you will associate with based on views, you run the risk of becoming biased). And that could prove fatal to AI.

Thus far, what is going on here is too vague to really make anything of it.

(Although I have to say that she really could've given the story to a better paper than the Times, hardly a bastion of unbiased integrity.)

Barney

Read what I underlined - It is the direction and who they align themselves with - also false impression that Begg is a defender of Human Rights - I think she was quite clear - as to what paper prints It - not relevant - it is her letter that is important and the views that she expressed - as i mentioned earlier - AI is having an internal battle over ideology along with HRW -

 

[earth_as_one]

CagedPrisoners is a defender of human rights. They defend the rights of prisoners who without due process were tortured and murdered. If CagedPrisoners switch their mission to subjugating women, I'd expect AI to withdraw their support.

 

[Goober]

CagedPrisoners is a defender of human rights. They defend the rights of prisoners who without due process were tortured and murdered. If CagedPrisoners switch their mission to subjugating women, I'd expect AI to withdraw their support.

EAO

I will believe Gita Sahgal over your version - You have little credibility in these affairs and she is a world respected expert - Not hard to figure that out.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7017810.ece


Gita Sahgal, head of the gender unit at Amnesty’s international secretariat, believes that collaborating with Moazzam Begg, a former British inmate at Guantanamo Bay, “fundamentally damages” the organisation’s reputation.In an email sent to Amnesty’s top bosses, she suggests the charity has mistakenly allied itself with Begg and his “jihadi” group, Cageprisoners, out of fear of being branded racist and Islamophobic.Sahgal describes Begg as “Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban”. He has championed the rights of jailed Al-Qaeda members and hate preachers, including Anwar al-Awlaki, the alleged spiritual mentor of the Christmas Day Detroit plane bomber.

 

[taxslave]

I don't recall AI generating much anger when some muslim terrorist towed a US soldier around until his head pulled off for a video. Come to think of it all the lefty taliban lovers were strangely quiet.

 

[Goober]

EIO
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article7026277.ece

A senior executive at Amnesty International has urged the charity to admit it made a “mistake” by failing publicly to oppose the views of a former terror suspect.

Sam Zarifi, Amnesty’s Asia Pacific director, backed Gita Sahgal, an official who was suspended after revealing her concerns about Amnesty’s links to the former Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg, a British citizen

.In an internal memo leaked to The Sunday Times, Zarifi, who oversees Amnesty’s work in Pakistan and Afghanistan, claimed the charity’s campaigns blurred the line between giving support for a detainee’s human rights and endorsing extremist views.

“We should be clear that some of Amnesty’s campaigning ... did not always sufficiently distinguish between the rights of detainees to be free from torture and arbitrary detention, and the validity of their views,” says Zarifi in the email, sent to his staff and dated February 10. Zarifi advised Amnesty to consider its working relationships with activists more carefully.He said:

“We did not always clarify that while we champion the rights of all — including terrorism suspects, and more important, victims of terrorism — we do not champion their views.

”Amnesty’s decision to suspend Sahgal, the head of its gender unit, while continuing its support for Begg, 42, of Birmingham, has provoked criticism.

Zarifi said Amnesty should have done more to respond to public concerns about its relationship with Begg and Cageprisoners, a pressure group that highlights the plight of Muslim detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

He wrote: “The organisation had taken steps to clarify that it did not in any way support all, or even many, of Moazzam Begg’s views. Obviously we did not do enough to establish this in the public sphere. We can and should publicly admit this mistake and move on and ensure we do not make the same mistake again.”

Amnesty officials called for the closure of Guantanamo Bay at a meeting in Downing Street last month.

Begg, who was held there for three years until 2005, has embarked on a European tour, hosted by Amnesty, urging countries to offer a safe haven to Guantanamo detainees.

Begg took his family to live in Afghanistan under Taliban rule but admits they were responsible for abuses.

 

[earth_as_one]

I don't recall AI generating much anger when some muslim terrorist towed a US soldier around until his head pulled off for a video. Come to think of it all the lefty taliban lovers were strangely quiet.

Please explain yourself, because it sounds to me like you saying that because you are ignorant of Amnesty International's criticism of Somalia, you figure AI and everyone who supports AI must support torturing American soldiers?

Amnesty doesn't take sides in wars and focuses on human rights issues. Since the American was captured and his rights as a POW were violated, I'd expect AI would condemn it. But I doubt I could find an AI report that old. What year was that?

Regarding Somalia:

Somalia

The interlinked human rights and humanitarian crises continued to worsen in 2008. Thousands more civilians were killed, bringing the total number of civilians killed as a result of armed conflict since January 2007 to more than 16,000. Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and Ethiopian armed forces fought against opposition clan-based groups and militias, most prominently al-Shabab (“youth”) militias which emerged out of the former Islamic Courts Union (ICU). More than 1.2 million civilians were internally displaced in southern and central Somalia. At the end of the year an estimated 3.25 million people were dependent on emergency food aid, which was often disrupted due to widespread insecurity and impacted by insufficient contributions from donor governments. Humanitarian aid workers and local human rights defenders were increasingly targeted in threats and killings.

In the northwest, the self-declared Republic of Somaliland, whose independence was not recognized by international bodies, enjoyed relative peace and security until a series of suicide bomb attacks in the capital, Hargeisa, on 29 October. Simultaneous attacks were carried out in Bossaso in the semi-autonomous Puntland Region of Somalia in the northeast....

Somalia | Amnesty International Report 2009

I can find many other AI reports regarding Somalia. For example:

Somalia: Girl stoned was a child of 13

31 October 2008

AI Index: PRE01/266/2008

Contrary to earlier news reports, the girl stoned to death in Somalia this week was 13, not 23, Amnesty International can reveal.

Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was killed on Monday, 27 October, by a group of 50 men who stoned her to death in a stadium in the southern port of Kismayu, in front of around 1,000 spectators.

Some of the Somali journalists who had reported she was 23 have told Amnesty International that this age was based upon a judgement of her age from her physical appearance.

She was accused of adultery in breach of Islamic law but, her father and other sources told Amnesty International that she had in fact been raped by three men, and had attempted to report this rape to the al-Shabab militia who control Kismayo, and it was this act that resulted in her being accused of adultery and detained. None of men she accused of rape were arrested.

“This was not justice, nor was it an execution. This child suffered a horrendous death at the behest of the armed opposition groups who currently control Kismayo,” said David Copeman, Amnesty International's Somalia Campaigner...

Somalia: Girl stoned was a child of 13 | Amnesty International

AI attempts to report all human rights problems and their focus is based primarily on severity and where they can do the most good.

 

[earth_as_one]

...In an internal memo leaked to The Sunday Times, Zarifi, who oversees Amnesty’s work in Pakistan and Afghanistan, claimed the charity’s campaigns blurred the line between giving support for a detainee’s human rights and endorsing extremist views...

I have no trouble telling the difference.

Perhaps you can reference an AI report which endorses an extremist view. Personally, I think being opposed to torture and murder is pretty mainstream.

 

[earth_as_one]

EAO

I will believe Gita Sahgal over your version - You have little credibility in these affairs and she is a world respected expert - Not hard to figure that out.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7017810.ece


Gita Sahgal, head of the gender unit at Amnesty’s international secretariat, believes that collaborating with Moazzam Begg, a former British inmate at Guantanamo Bay, “fundamentally damages” the organisation’s reputation.In an email sent to Amnesty’s top bosses, she suggests the charity has mistakenly allied itself with Begg and his “jihadi” group, Cageprisoners, out of fear of being branded racist and Islamophobic.Sahgal describes Begg as “Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban”. He has championed the rights of jailed Al-Qaeda members and hate preachers, including Anwar al-Awlaki, the alleged spiritual mentor of the Christmas Day Detroit plane bomber.

Its not "my version". I read both sides of this. The side you referenced and the AI version. Then I gave my opinion.

Here is AI's rebuttal again:

Amnesty International on its work with Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners
11 February 2010

There has been a lot of controversy in the media surrounding Amnesty International’s work with Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners, in light of statements by Gita Sahgal, a Amnesty International staff member.

Contrary to Gita Sahgal’s assertions to the media, she was not suspended from Amnesty International for raising these issues internally. In fact we actively welcome vigorous internal debate. Up to now we have maintained confidentiality in line with our policy but wanted to correct this misrepresentation. This is not a reflection on the organisation’s respect for her work as a women’s rights activist and does not undermine the work she has done over the last few years as the head of Amnesty International’s gender unit.

Our work with Moazzam Begg has focused exclusively on highlighting the human rights violations committed in Guantánamo Bay and the need for the US government to shut it down and either release or put on trial those who have been held there. Moazzam Begg was one of the first detainees released by the US without charge, and has never been charged with any terrorist-related offence or put on trial.

When President Obama promised to close Guantánamo, Amnesty International hoped that we could wind down our campaign and focus more broadly on human rights abuses related to security and terrorism. However, as that promise remains unmet, Amnesty International continues to work with Moazzam Begg and other former detainees to ask European governments to accommodate those who cannot be returned to their country of citizenship without risk of torture or ill-treatment.

In this complex and polarised world we at Amnesty International face the challenge of communicating clearly the scope of our work with individuals and groups. Amnesty International champions and continues to champion Moazzam Begg’s rights as a former detainee at Guantánamo. He speaks about his own views and experiences, not Amnesty International’s. And Moazzam Begg has never used a platform he shared with Amnesty to speak against the rights of others.

Amnesty International has a long history of demanding justice – in the case of our Counter Terror with Justice Campaign we called for both an end to human rights abuses at Guantánamo and other locations, and called for those detained there to be brought to justice, in fair trials that respected due process.

However, our work for justice and human rights spans a far wider range of issues than counter-terrorism and security. Amnesty International has done considerable research on the Taleban and campaigns to stop violence against women and to promote women’s equality. We continue to take a strong line against abuses by religiously-based insurgent groups and/or governments imposing religious strictures, Islamic or otherwise, in violation of human rights law. Sometimes the people whose rights we defend may not share each others views – but they all have human rights, and all human rights are worth defending.

Amnesty International on its work with Moazzam Begg and Cageprisoners

The real issue here:

"Why are Israeli apologists like yourself attempting to discredit human rights organizations?"

I believe its because AI is critical of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity and Israeli apologists like yourself believe that a good defence is a strong offence.

 

[Dixie Cup]

The problem I have with groups like AI readily condem the West and Isreal when we screw up, and rightly so. Funny tho' how you never hear anything from them about the Taliban, AQ or others like them blow up civilians. That's biased to me so, for the most part, I pay them no attention.

JMO

 

[Colpy]

"The problem I have with groups like AI readily condem the West and Isreal when we screw up, and rightly so. Funny tho' how you never hear anything from them about the Taliban, AQ or others like them blow up civilians. That's biased to me so, for the most part, I pay them no attention."

They hardly, if ever, condemned the Soviet Union and China, either.

In AI defence, that is simply not true. They did, consistently and often, condemn both the USSR and China.

They are now caught up in the mass hysteria over Israel and the Jews.......an emotional reaction (unfortunately) not without precedent in our history....in fact the hysteria over the evil actions of the Jews has been unceasing for the past 1,000 years, only climaxing in the Holocaust of 1941 to 1945.

Sharing the stage with an Islamist, the kind of man who defends those that throw acid in the faces of young girls (just for an example), discredits the organization.

 

[earth_as_one]

you mean like this recent statement?

Afghanistan: Human rights must be guaranteed during Taleban talks

26 January 2010

AI Index: PRE01/025/2010

Human rights, including women’s rights, must not be traded away or compromised during any reconciliation talks with the Taleban in Afghanistan, Amnesty International said on the eve of a London conference set to discuss deteriorating security conditions in the country.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, other leaders and foreign ministers are to discuss security arrangements in Afghanistan for the next two years, including reconciliation programmes to reintegrate so-called moderate elements of Taleban.

"Any discussions with the Taleban must include clear commitments that they will respect and promote the rights of the Afghan people," said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific director.

“The Taleban established a terrible record of violating human rights during their rule and they have done nothing since then to indicate they will act differently if they return to power.”

"The policymakers gathered in London this week have to show that they will not sacrifice the well-being of the Afghan people at the altar of political and military expediency."

Similar deals with the Taleban in neighbouring Pakistan led to increased human rights violations in areas under Taleban control and a significant escalation in conflict and insecurity.

The Afghan government and insurgent groups must both adhere to Afghanistan’s obligations under international human rights law and domestic law, Amnesty International said.

The Taleban and other insurgent groups in Afghanistan have shown little regard for human rights and the laws of war, deliberately targeting civilians, launching indiscriminate suicide attacks in which civilians are killed and engaging in the wholesale destruction of girls’ education.

According to UN figures, the Taleban were responsible for two thirds of the more than 2400 civilian casualties in Afghanistan last year, the bloodiest year yet since the fall of the Taleban.

In areas under their control, the Taleban have severely curtailed the rights of girls and women, including the denial of education, employment, freedom of movement and political participation and representation.

Afghan civil society groups, in particular women's groups, have voiced serious alarms about the prospect of ceding any type of political control to the Taleban.

“Diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict are a positive step forward,” said Sam Zarifi, “but the rights of the Afghan people must never be negotiated away.

“It is our experience that peace without justice or human rights is not real peace and could ultimately lead to further conflict.”

Afghanistan: Human rights must be guaranteed during Taleban talks | Amnesty International

or this

Pakistan: People of Buner at mercy of Taleban

23 April 2009

Nearly 650,000 Pakistanis living in Buner district, some 120 kilometres from Islamabad, are now at the mercy of abusive and repressive Pakistani Taleban groups that have taken over the area since 21 April, Amnesty International said from Pakistan today. Buner's takeover follows the Taleban's assumption of power in the neighbouring Swat valley.

“The Pakistani government is fiddling as the North West Frontier Province burns,” said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific director, in Islamabad. “The government has not given any sense of how it intends to protect the rights of hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis who are now subject to the repressive rule of the Taleban, just in the shadow of the capital.” ...

Pakistan: People of Buner at mercy of Taleban | Amnesty International

or this

Taleban must immediately stop targeting civilians in Afghanistan
Smoke rises from the site of attack on a guesthouse used by UN staff, Kabul, Afghanistan, 28 October 2009

Smoke rises from the site of attack on a guesthouse used by UN staff, Kabul, Afghanistan, 28 October 2009

© APGraphicsBank

28 October 2009

Amnesty International has condemned the Taleban's attack on a guesthouse hosting staff from the United Nations in Kabul on Wednesday, that killed at least six civilian UN staff.

The Taleban took responsibility for the incident and threatened more such attacks in the run up to the second round of the highly contested presidential elections, scheduled for 7 November.

The attack is the worst on the UN in Afghanistan since the United States and its allies helped oust the Taleban in 2001.

In a public statement on Wednesday, Amnesty International reminded the Taleban that attacks targeting civilians constitute war crimes....

Taleban must immediately stop targeting civilians in Afghanistan | Amnesty International

The facts is, AI has consistently condemned the Taleban's human rights abuses and their track record goes back long before 9/11 and before most people in Canada and the US knew anything about them.

3 SEPTEMBER 1998

Afghanistan

Thousands of civilians killed
following Taleban takeover of Mazar-e Sharif

Taleban guards deliberately and systematically killed thousands of ethnic Hazara civilians during the first three days following their military takeover of Mazar-e Sharif on 8 August 1998, according to new information received by Amnesty International.

Since their arrival in Mazar-e Sharif, the Taleban have sealed the area to foreign media and independent observers. Amnesty International's information is based on testimonies from eyewitnesses and surviving members of the victims' families. ...

Afghanistan: Thousands of civilians killed following Taleban takeover of Maxar-e Sharif - Amnesty International

and

Amnesty International, unlike the US has a record of consistently condemning Taleban huamn Rights abuses. The US has a history of arming them when it served their purpose and demonizing them after they bit the hand that fed them.

...The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan, and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war."[5] FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who has been fired from the agency for disclosing sensitive information, has claimed United States was on intimate terms with Taliban and Al-Qaeda, using them to further certain goals in Central Asia.[6]...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_of_the_Taliban%27s_rise_to_power

AI's has a clean record of consistently identifying and condemning Human Rights abuses.

Care to retract your statement Dixie Girl?

 

[darkbeaver]

In AI defence, that is simply not true. They did, consistently and often, condemn both the USSR and China.

They are now caught up in the mass hysteria over Israel and the Jews.......an emotional reaction (unfortunately) not without precedent in our history....in fact the hysteria over the evil actions of the Jews has been unceasing for the past 1,000 years, only climaxing in the Holocaust of 1941 to 1945.

Sharing the stage with an Islamist, the kind of man who defends those that throw acid in the faces of young girls (just for an example), discredits the organization.

You never back up your spurious claims about thousands of years of persecution of the Jews with reliable documentation from disinterested third parties. In the four years I can remember being here you have used that tired old canard dozens of times as if it were established fact beyond debate and requiring no context whatever. Sharing the stage with racist zionist murderers who regularly throw feces into the faces of tiny children on their way to school and collapse houses on the heads of the aged and shoot farmers at will while they work their fields, discredits you. Sucking up to terrorists dosen't bother you at all.