Amnesty International Hates America
That’s what President Bush would have you believe. President Bush, during a Rose Garden news conference, called an Amnesty International human rights report “absurd” for criticizing the United States’ detention of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Bush continued to say that the allegations were made by “people who hate America.”
The President should apologize for his remarks.
Amnesty International envisions a world in which all individuals enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. In the organization’s 2005 Human Rights Report on the United States, it points to evidence – including the detention of individuals without charges at Guantanamo Bay; allegations that the US administration had sanctioned interrogation techniques that violate the UN Convention against Torture; allegations of abuse by domestic US police; and the utilization of the death penalty by the states – to claim that the United States has a less than stellar human rights record during the past year. Amnesty International may be overstating its claim, especially in comparison to other nations in the world, but that does not mean that the allegations were made by “people who hate America.”
The President claimed during his press conference that “the United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world.” If he believes this statement, along with the principles of the freedom of speech, he should acknowledge that Amnesty International has a right to criticize the United States government even as disagrees with the organization’s evidence and conclusions.
posted by Unknown @ 4:06 PM
33 comments
33 Comments:
Sorry Joe but I will have to disagree with you on this one. "Amnesty International Hates America" is the last thing I got out of the Presidents comments. The President needs not apologize for anything he said on this subject in the Rose Garden News Conference. He made a simple statement saying: "I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. It's an absurd allegation." Sorry but he was 100% correct on this matter.
The Q and A on this goes as follows............
Terry.
Q Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: Terry.
Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, recently, Amnesty International said you have established "a new gulag" of prisons around the world, beyond the reach of the law and decency. I'd like your reaction to that, and also your assessment of how it came to this, that that is a view not just held by extremists and anti-Americans, but by groups that have allied themselves with the United States government in the past -- and what the strategic impact is that in many places of the world, the United States these days, under your leadership, is no longer seen as the good guy.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. It's an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that is -- promotes freedom around the world. When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way. It's just an absurd allegation.
In terms of the detainees, we've had thousands of people detained. We've investigated every single complaint against the detainees. It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of -- and the allegations -- by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble -- that means not tell the truth. And so it was an absurd report. It just is. And, you know -- yes, sir.
Interesting definition of disassemble there, George.
Its funny, when america needs it, they rely on reports like amnesty to blast other goverments for their human rights problems, but when amnesty points out a well known fact about americas problems with human rights, they call it absurd. No wonder the U.S. has lost all credibility around the world.
disassemble... no acutally that means to take apart... to dissemble means to conceal...
In another less politically correct era we would have noted Mr Bush's linguistic impairment by calling him a moron
no point calling Bush a moron, that's common knowledge. The day after 9/11 America asked 'Why do they hate us?' well the world has been trying to tell you for some time, but you keep brushing off our complaints and denigrating the accusers. i'm catholic, malaysian, and of multiple ethnicities and i have no reason to 'Hate America' but i have many reasons for hating your government. 100,000 dead iraqis, 20,000 dead afghanis, ferrying prisoners in US custody to third nations for torture, unsound ecological policies, unfair trade practices, outright lies, christian fanatacism and the seemingly low-level of intellect by anyone in either the senate or congress. What else do you need?
Bush's implication was incorrect, however. He says that the people who are alleging human rights offenses hate America--he's implying that the terrorists are saying these things.
But these are the folks who were released. They're not the terrorists--they're the ones who were held for 2 or 3 years illegally, then released because they aren't terrorists.
Maybe they do hate America--but only because she imprisoned them for 3 years.
This is disturbing, Rumsfield himself touted Amnesty International reports in the lead-up to war along with countless others in the administration. Now of course that the most recent report is critical of the U.S. (and it should be) suddenly the report is not worth the paper it is printed on. Another example of the administrations double-standard.
If anyone agrees with Bush that the Amnesty report must be absurd, just ask yourselves why those prisoners are being held in Guantanamo Bay, outside of the protection of U.S. law, instead of being held on U.S. soil.
The Gulag of our times? I question whether or not the good people at Amnesty have even read Solzhenitsyn. I have, and Guantanamo only a complete fool would try to relate the two.
Unfortunately, though the founding principles of Amnesty International are sound, the organization is terribly unorganized and unclear as to their current courses of actions. All of which has led me to the conclusion that perhaps, they do not have all the information... but then again, neither does Bush or our current administration.
Though I will agree that yes, certain allegations of Amnesty International is absurd, however certain allegations of Bush and/or of the administration are also absurd and much of it baseless propaganda.
Absurd defining absurd. LMAO
The US as the "defender of freedom and human rights"? Now there's a laugh and a half.
When Shrub starts defending freedom and human rights in Uzbekistan and Sudan, and stops trying to overthrow fledgeling democracies in Venezuela and Iran, then he can talk. Until then, he's talking out of his grass like the chicken-stiff coward that he is.
Increasingly the US is using an "everyone does it/did it so quit moaning" position to defend what it is curently doing domestically and overseas. If you justify your position as the leaders of the free world by saying you have the moral high ground you have to live up to that. I keep getting nagging doubts here.
To quote my very moderate 75 year old father who did military service on the iron curtain in Germany in the early 50's. "I'm wondering if we were looking the wrong way"
What is absurd is the fact that the US is now seen as the great villian in the eyes of the majority of people on the planet, and that we have the worlds premire international human rights organization calling for the arrest of senior US government officials on war crimes charges. Furthermore the American population supports the atrocities that are being committed. Germany circa 1938. That's what we have going on for those too blind to see. It's a very sad day for America.
Germany circa 1938? Debate is pointless without perspective. I wonder why so many find it so hard to criticize the U.S. without falling into extreme exageration. Do they think no one will listen unless they compare the U.S. to the vilest villains in history? Hate destroys truth first. We can be upset, even angered at some actions of the Bush administration, but blatantly false comparisons to gulags and Nazis won't suddenly inspire change. What's the goal behind using such exagerations? They're not going to persuade anyone to listen or change.
Maybe he is referring to 60,000+ prisoners, many held in outdoor pens in the desert. Maybe it's the 100,000 plus dead, many of whom are women and children. Maybe it's the serial numbers being written on the heads of detainees, pictures of which have been widely circulated. Maybe it's the comparison between 911 and the Riechstag fire. Maybe it's a one party system that owns the press masquerading as a democracy. Maybe it's illegal action with impunity. I don't know, but I certainly do not like where things are headed, and I think he could be right. I just read about a holocoust survivor who is leaving the US because he says he has seen it once before. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and the people in charge have absolute power, and an agenda, which is to conquer the mideast.
Don't forget a town called called Fallujah which was a town of 350,000 people, reduced to rubble and thousands of Iraqi families, people just like you and I, with the same hopes and dreams, now homeless, possessionless, and jobless with no running water and electricity. It's just time to come to grips with what is being done, and then the Amnesty report calling for the arrest of Senior US officials on war crimes charges makes a lot more sense. Or, you can just turn on Rupert Murdoch's propaganda on FOX news and be fat dumb and disinformed. All this comes from someone who voted for Reagan. The Neocons are neither new nor conservative. In the 80's they were affectionately known in white house circles as "the crazies".
Just a couple of questions about Fallujah. What would have been your solution? Would it have been better for the Iraqis to leave it in the hands of insurgents, hell-bent on reimposing Baathist power and/or turning Iraq into a radical-muslim state? Do you think the people of Fallujah were happy that their town had been turned into a haven for terrorists? The situation was pretty grim, how would you have improved it? And don't say you wouldn't have gone into Iraq to begin with. I'm asking, once we were there, once we had bungled the aftermath to the invasion, how should Fallujah have been handled?
I for one think Fallujah should have been handled by ending an occupation that will obviously end in civil war.
There is no invasion/military occupation that has ever worked out in the history of the world....for good reason. If China came to occupy the US and decided it was necessary to level your hometown, accidentally kill your friends family and relatives, I doubt that would win you over.
Certainly destroying a town where hundreds of thousands of people, most of them law abiding citizens just like you and I, who lost everything, and many lost their lives. How can anyone justify this as "bringing freedom" to these people? That is what is patently absurd.
As Iraq is now about to enter a full blown civil war, you have to have a deeper understanding to realize that the desired outcome of this invasion is to break up Iraq into three innocous states, as per the 1996 plan "A clean Break, Securing the realm" written by Doug Feith in 1996 for Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, Feith in 2003 was the person running the Pentagons office of special plans, which manufactured the lies necessary to take the nation to war, to secure 25% of the worlds oil reserves and eliminate what Israel perceived as a threat.
So the invasions and subsequent occupations of Germany and Japan didn't lead to free, open societies with strong economies? And before you say anything, I do get the difference between WWII and Iraq. But didn't the Japanese and Germans have just as much reason to hate us and resist our presence?
Are you also arguing that we should have stayed out of Afghanistan?
And, is your solution to Iraq to just leave and let civil war explode?
The smart people knew that civil war would be the inevitable result before the invasion was ever launched, and that was the goal of the neocons. Whether the US stays or not, the inevitable result will be civil war.
The US is staying...there are 12 permanent military bases being constructed....because it is planned to be the central base from with further invasions will be launched. Iran is next. That's what the plan says. WWIII will follow. That's what I'm saying. If you don't believe me, listen to Sharon's top advisor.
"We've been fighting a war for the past 18 months, which is the harbinger of World War III. The world is going to fight, whether they like it or not. I'm sure,'' Ra'anan Gissin - Senior Advisor to Ariel Sharon as quoted in the Arizona Sun Newspaper
I don't think that President Bush was calling the accusations per se absurd. Rather, his focus was on Amnesty International's ridiculous use of the term 'gulag' to refer to conditions at Gitmo Bay. Hasn't The Yellow Line even chastised AI on this point?
I just read this report. Iren Khan from Bangladesh is very biased in her wording toward the atrocities accused of some countries (including her own) compared to the US. I found this interesting:
"In Rwanda, the work of a leading independent human rights organization, the Rwandese League for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights (LIPRODHOR), was effectively closed down. It was among a number of Rwandese NGOs recommended for dissolution on the grounds that they had supported the genocide, after investigations by a Parliamentary Commission that were neither fair nor transparent."
>> This was a HUMAN RIGHTS group found to be at fault! AI thinks this must be a mistake! If the AI could consider this neither fair nor transparent, how about the accusations against the US at Guantonamo. Maybe more facts should be looked at before basing a large part of a report on such accusations.
At least 147 people reportedly died during the year in what the government portrayed as deaths in crossfire between the special security force known as the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and suspected criminals. There were concerns that the deaths, which usually occurred in desolate locations after the arrest of suspects, were deliberate killings by the RAB. Opposition parties alleged their members were most frequently targeted, but the government denied this.
>>Notice that in Bangladesh, Iren Khan's home country, the governement gets the AI benefit of the doubt when 147 political opponents turn up dead. Notice how the wording compares with the wording used when discussing the US. No wonder they don't have scandals like Guantanamo, they just kill their opponents outright.
It is really sad that you do not see the Democrats = ACLU = far leftists that are in a cabal to use any things to bring America down. The Democrats want power so bad they have sold their souls to all who will help them get back into office and set up The Hillary for 2008. The media runs with every outlandish story out of the mouths of the seditious progressives! The media is far leftists! PeoplePolitical.org
Is the News Media Liberal?
From Ryan Woodhams,
Your Guide to Conservative Politics: U.S..
FREE GIFT with Newsletter! Act Now!
Studies Show Reporters Less Conservative Than General Public
It's a frequent complaint of conservatives and Republicans, and increasingly liberals and Democrats: The news media tilts against them and aggressively pursues its own partisan agenda.
While it's something of a wild conspiracy theory to think that thousands of American journalists wake up everyday thinking about how they can screw conservatives and Republicans, surveys of news reporters, editors and producers show they generally are more liberal and less conservative than the general public.
It makes sense that even very scrupulous, honest people who strive to be objective still have opinions, as any person does, that color their perceptions. In this case, journalists generally have liberal views themselves and infrequently encounter co-workers who don't share their views, especially at nationally media organizations.
A survey released in May 2004 by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press provides the most recent figures to this evidence. That study shows journalists at the local and national level consider themselves more liberal compared with the public overall and less conservative. But like the general public, most journalists call themselves moderates. (Some commentators on this survey wonder if the survey participants may call themselves moderate despite not having those views.)
"Journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues," the survey's summary notes. "Most national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates. But news people especially national journalists are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public."
The survey found that 20 percent of general public calls itself liberal while 34 percent of the national journalists and 23 percent of local journalists. Forty-one percent of the public calls itself moderate while 54 percent of the national and 61 percent of the local journalists do so.
That compares with how 33 percent of the American public calls itself conservative compared with 7 percent of the national and 12 percent of local journalists.
According to Fred Barnes in the conservative Weekly Standard:
"The argument over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative."
Links to Related Pew Center Surveys
Reporters Lean Left Media Credibility Declines Public Sees Media Fair, Pro-Gore
Suggested Reading
Conservative Media Watchdogs Liberal Media Watchdogs Nonpartisan Media Watchdogs
It is really sad that you do not see the Democrats = ACLU = far leftists that are in a cabal to use any things to bring America down. The Democrats want power so bad they have sold their souls to all who will help them get back into office and set up The Hillary for 2008. The media runs with every outlandish story out of the mouths of the seditious progressives! The media is far leftists!
Is the News Media Liberal?
From Ryan Woodhams,
Your Guide to Conservative Politics: U.S..
FREE GIFT with Newsletter! Act Now!
Studies Show Reporters Less Conservative Than General Public
It's a frequent complaint of conservatives and Republicans, and increasingly liberals and Democrats: The news media tilts against them and aggressively pursues its own partisan agenda.
While it's something of a wild conspiracy theory to think that thousands of American journalists wake up everyday thinking about how they can screw conservatives and Republicans, surveys of news reporters, editors and producers show they generally are more liberal and less conservative than the general public.
It makes sense that even very scrupulous, honest people who strive to be objective still have opinions, as any person does, that color their perceptions. In this case, journalists generally have liberal views themselves and infrequently encounter co-workers who don't share their views, especially at nationally media organizations.
A survey released in May 2004 by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press provides the most recent figures to this evidence. That study shows journalists at the local and national level consider themselves more liberal compared with the public overall and less conservative. But like the general public, most journalists call themselves moderates. (Some commentators on this survey wonder if the survey participants may call themselves moderate despite not having those views.)
"Journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues," the survey's summary notes. "Most national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates. But news people especially national journalists are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public."
The survey found that 20 percent of general public calls itself liberal while 34 percent of the national journalists and 23 percent of local journalists. Forty-one percent of the public calls itself moderate while 54 percent of the national and 61 percent of the local journalists do so.
That compares with how 33 percent of the American public calls itself conservative compared with 7 percent of the national and 12 percent of local journalists.
According to Fred Barnes in the conservative Weekly Standard:
"The argument over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative."
Links to Related Pew Center Surveys
Reporters Lean Left Media Credibility Declines Public Sees Media Fair, Pro-Gore
Suggested Reading
Conservative Media Watchdogs Liberal Media Watchdogs Nonpartisan Media Watchdogs
It is really sad that you do not see the Democrats = ACLU = far leftists that are in a cabal to use any things to bring America down. The Democrats want power so bad they have sold their souls to all who will help them get back into office and set up The Hillary for 2008. The media runs with every outlandish story out of the mouths of the seditious progressives! The media is far leftists!
Is the News Media Liberal?
From Ryan Woodhams,
Your Guide to Conservative Politics: U.S..
FREE GIFT with Newsletter! Act Now!
Studies Show Reporters Less Conservative Than General Public
It's a frequent complaint of conservatives and Republicans, and increasingly liberals and Democrats: The news media tilts against them and aggressively pursues its own partisan agenda.
While it's something of a wild conspiracy theory to think that thousands of American journalists wake up everyday thinking about how they can screw conservatives and Republicans, surveys of news reporters, editors and producers show they generally are more liberal and less conservative than the general public.
It makes sense that even very scrupulous, honest people who strive to be objective still have opinions, as any person does, that color their perceptions. In this case, journalists generally have liberal views themselves and infrequently encounter co-workers who don't share their views, especially at nationally media organizations.
A survey released in May 2004 by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press provides the most recent figures to this evidence. That study shows journalists at the local and national level consider themselves more liberal compared with the public overall and less conservative. But like the general public, most journalists call themselves moderates. (Some commentators on this survey wonder if the survey participants may call themselves moderate despite not having those views.)
"Journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues," the survey's summary notes. "Most national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates. But news people especially national journalists are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public."
The survey found that 20 percent of general public calls itself liberal while 34 percent of the national journalists and 23 percent of local journalists. Forty-one percent of the public calls itself moderate while 54 percent of the national and 61 percent of the local journalists do so.
That compares with how 33 percent of the American public calls itself conservative compared with 7 percent of the national and 12 percent of local journalists.
According to Fred Barnes in the conservative Weekly Standard:
"The argument over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative."
Links to Related Pew Center Surveys
Reporters Lean Left Media Credibility Declines Public Sees Media Fair, Pro-Gore
Suggested Reading
Conservative Media Watchdogs Liberal Media Watchdogs Nonpartisan Media Watchdogs
The blog poster, like Amnesty International, is afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome. AI uses an absurd comparison with no sense of perspective or historical context, and no repsect for the suffering of the millions of victims of the gulags. And the blog jumps to a mistaken conclusion about what Bush said by being so eager to jump on anything Bush says, following Dan Rather and Newsweek into the black hole of self-satisfying Bush-bashing.
Ya'll libs are funny like that!
"Ya'll libs are funny like that."
First, I would reccommend you actually read more than one post before declaring us liberals. And, second, if you did, you'd see that we strongly criticized Amnesity International for the gulag statement--which was just outlandish.
Nevertheless, President Bush should rise above. His comments made it sound as if Amnesty had no right to comment negatively on U.S. policy. That is incorrect. Bush also made it seem as if there has been no abuse of prisoners at all--that is also incorrect.
The President of the United States should not sink to the level of verbal attacks. Leave that to the underlings. It's out of line for the President to sink to such levels. Either acknowlege that AI was wrong but has a right to speak, or decline to address the situation at all.
The remark was directed at Mr. Weedon ("The blog poster") and whomever may share his views. If you count yourself in that august group then so be it. The post makes an incorrect assumption about what Bush said, then draws a mistaken conclusion, then slops it across the top as the misleading post title. So eager to jump Bush, is he the bigger enemy? Apparently so, to the left.
As conveniently provided in a preceding comment, Bush was referring to the "detainees" (also known as unlawful combatants) and not Amnesty International as the ones who hate America.
And on top of taking the cheap shot you presume to lecture about the high ground? You want to draw such a restrictive box around the actions we can take in a war? So far every single thing we have done has brought howls of protest from the so-called reality community.
As far as the right to engage in such exaggerated hyperbole, the only difference I can see between Amnesty International and the leftists (including this post with its fawning description of AI's supposed vision) and the enemy is that the former profess to love America while the latter wants to destroy us. So their professed motives are opposite but their rhetorical statements are indistinguishable.
The post, like the Amnesty International statement, is a perfect example not of principled opposition but of irresponsible criticism, and it is going on all over.
Robert
Robert,
Considering Joe Weedon and I write this blog together, I do share his views, although not always.
I think you're misreading the post. It's not meant to support AI's conclusion or to say that Guantanamo is, on the whole, bad. It's only meant to criticize the President for being petulant about a group that his own administration has, in the past, cited as credible. Yes, AI seriously mistated the truth, but Bush acted as if AI itself was in league with the terrorists. They are not, even if their rhetoric mirrors the claims of terrorists. That distinction is important and one the President failed to make clearly. A man in his position, with his authority, should be clear when he chooses to so strongly criticize a major international orginization. He was far from clear.
I agree with you completely that there is far too much irresponsible criticism of Bush and the war. But I don't think this post qualifies. I think you're reading a much harsher criticism into this than there is--and that's the hazard of blogs, one post will not give you the full scope of a blog's opinions. Really, you should read this. I think you'll see we come down more on your side than this one post might make it seem.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
-Martin Luther King Jr
"Justice delayed, is justice denied."
-William Gladstone
"We stand for freedom. That is our conviction for ourselves; that is our only commitment to others."
-John F. Kennedy
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
Vs
"disassemble — that means not tell the truth," -G W Bush
How many have been imprisoned without a trail? How many abuse reports have had a third party investigator? What was our logic for attacking another county?
GG
I don't think Bush was saying that Amnesty International "hates America." I think he was saying that the people they interviewed do.
Of course, after being locked up for months or years on suspicion of being in league with our enemies, and then let go when it turned out you didn't, I wouldn't blame anyone for being just a little spiteful...
J
Post a Comment
<< Home