US goes on counter-attack against Amnesty International

[Barrett808]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States went on the counter-attack against Amnesty International, rejecting its charges of the torture of terror suspects and criticizing its lack of help in prosecuting deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack dismissed allegations by the Nobel Prize-winning rights group, which cited reports that US prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and elsewhere were subject to "torture and ill-treatment."

"Nobody is being tortured at Guantanamo Bay," McCormack told reporters when asked about the charges in Amnesty International's latest annual report.

He went on to point out Amnesty's role in documenting rights abuses during the 24 years of Saddam's rule before he was deposed by the Americans in 2003 and later captured and charged with crimes against humanity.

"But when it came time to put Saddam Hussein on trial, which is happening right now, they (Amnesty) are absent. They've done zero, zip, nothing, to assist in those efforts," McCormack said.

(more)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060523/pl_afp/amnestyrightsus

[rpannier]

1. And he'd like AI to do what exactly???

Provide attorneys? Volunteer testimony? What? They've got 20+ years of AI documentation already available to them.

[JerseygirlCT]

45. That's what I was wondering. What exactly are they supposed

to be doing during the trial? What a stupid statement!

[Kutjara]

2. Hold on one damned minute!

Does BushCo seriously expect us to swallow the idea that Amnesty International should be an investigative branch of the US Government?

As far as I know, Amnesty's mission is to document oppression by governments, and work to secure the release of 'prisoners of conscience.' I can't find anything in its charter that says this role includes helping aggressive states retrospectively justify regime change. Amnesty expressly stands between government and the people they abuse. It does not help governments propagate abuse.

[cantstandbush]

37. The US can never withstand the truth about itsself.

We damn well know that we stand in violation of almoset every international law of peace and war that is on the books.

[BayCityProgressive]

3. I am a member of Amnesty International

I will look into this further but I love that they target all human rights abusers and if they really are giving Saddam a free pass I will not be pleased. Any other members here?

[BayCityProgressive]

5. Providing lawyers

is the job of the US. They are the invaders. I just want to clear up whether or not AI is still showing people Saddams crimes. They should follow up on him until he is punished to the highest extent of the law (except torture or the death penalty of course!)

[Barrett808]

6. Doubly outrageous, considering how Poppy Bush dismissed AI re Saddam

Until, of course, it was politicallly useful to embrace AI's findings on Saddam, in late 1990.

[Bjornsdotter]

9. Yeah

:hi:

I don't believe they would give Saddam a pass.

Cheers

[annabanana]

12. here. . . . eom

[Judi Lynn]

21. Such a rare privilege, right? Did they do a background check on you,

or was it as easy as participating in an on-line poll, after which they invited you to join?

Very impressive.

[Mike Daniels]

36. They've always been critical of Saddam

The thing that kills me on sites like FR is that the people there act like AI and other human rights groups were silent during Saddam's reign when quite the opposite was true.

Meanwhile, the FReeps conveniently ignore that the US government had no problem with Saddam's "methods" pre-Gulf War I, not to mention that "human rights issues" were just about the last reason given under Bush's justification for overthrowing the Iraqi leadership.

I think the issue here is that material produced by AI in the past could easily be introduced as evidence w/out having to bring AI staff in to testify.

[rodeodance]

4. doing what they do best.! deny.

[wryter2000]

7. Deny, obfuscate, and counter attack

What in blue blazes is Amnesty International supposed to be doing regarding Saddam's trial?

[uppityperson]

8. The headline is rather misleading, isn't it? "US gvt" would be correct.

[UpInArms]

10. *Co hates being called on its Orwellian "Doublespeak"

http://www.topix.net/content/reuters/1465320190098688417306948053372459257622?threadid=JB7AH8G5Q0D0HBIA

LONDON (Reuters) - Doublespeak by nations like the United States and Britain has undermined their own war on terrorism and increased human rights violations from Colombia to North Korea, Amnesty International said on Tuesday.

Accusations that the United States -- with the complicity of some European nations -- while banning torture at home had been flying prisoners around the world for interrogation by countries with no such qualms had dented their moral authority, it said.

"Duplicity and doublespeak have become the hallmark of the war on terror," the human rights watchdog's secretary general Irene Khan told a news conference to publish its annual report.

"There is evidence of widespread torture in U.S. detention centers," she said. "The United States outsources torture to countries like Morocco, Jordan and Syria."

She said that at least seven European countries had sanctioned or turned a blind eye to the use of their airspace for so-called extraordinary rendition flights carrying prisoners for interrogation outside the United States.

"Powerful governments are playing a dangerous game with human rights," Khan said. "The scorecard of prolonged conflicts and mounting human rights abuses is there for all to see."

...more...

[IndianaGreen]

11. The United States did not attack Amnesty International, it was Bush!

The Bush dictatorship is NOT the United States of America. The US government does not speak for the American people and we are not responsible for the traitors and criminals that have subverted our Constitution and supplanted the Republic with tyranny.

[Kagemusha]

16. Today, I must disagree with you and strongly so.

The Bush Administration is the US government. The US government does indeed speak for the American People and all Americans are responsible, because that's how the system works. You argue, you dispute, you elect, and then you stand united when facing the rest of the world under one President, first among equals. You are protected by the US military whether you like it or not. You are representend by Bush whether you like it or not. That is the system. You are part of it. Until the very instant any of these conditions change, they shall continue to exist.

Deal.

[IndianaGreen]

19. The WTC victims died because of US policies in Middle East

None of them were responsible for those policies, for none of them had any input on their formulation and implementation.

Millions of us marched against the war in Iraq before it began. The British Parliament and Congress were flooded with phone calls, letters, and e-mails arguing against the war. They didn't listen to us!

We are not responsible for this war, and we will not stand in support of Bush and his criminal enterprises.

[Kagemusha]

24. You should oppose all the more because you share responsibility.

If you genuinely had no responsibility your opposing these things would be an act of intellectual charity alone rather than taking responsibility for your country.

I just can't support the "the people are not the government" beyond a certain point though. Or put more to the point, I can't expect non-Americans to seriously accept the notion that Bush does not represent America and the citizens thereof. They can accept he represents America and its citizens poorly, but represent them, he does. Just as Hitler represented the citizens of Nazi Germany and Hirohito was the representative of WWII Japan's citizens. Internally, there was dissent. Externally, there was one voice that mattered, and only one. And that's how international relations work.

[IndianaGreen]

26. The Iraqis were not responsible for the crimes of Saddam

and they certainly had no input in their government's policies.

I reject the idea of mass responsibility and punishment, although I certainly believe in personal responsibility.

Many Germans cheered Hitler, but many also opposed him, and paid dearly for their opposition.

[Kagemusha]

27. I'm not into mass punishment at all. But mass responsibility: yes.

Collective responsibility is what I'd term it as. You get the benefits of citizenship, you bear your small slice of the responsibility. Doesn't excuse things like bombing civilian populations; I never cease to be amazed at how righteous such actions seem to soldiers who are "just following orders". But responsibility is not a concept liberals should run from.

[Barrett808]

30. A question that worries me often: How responsible am I for Bush?

I mean, I've vocally opposed the Bush family since the 1980s, but even so, do I bear at least some responsibility for Fallujah? After all, I didn't do everything in my power to stop Bush...

[Kagemusha]

31. Responsibility isn't because of Bush, but because of the flag.

Bush is representing the flag and the flag is representing you. And that's how responsibility gets shared.

And that's why America is inherently reluctant to blame Presidents for acts committed in office in the course of official duties, both in a legal sense (war crimes) and a moral sense (political support).

[AlamoDemoc]

20. Hey! you stole my response...but I ain't mad...you even said it better

[lindisfarne]

22. And the majority of the US population supported Bush when it started

the war in Iraq. *yes, a lot have changed their minds now* *sigh-too bad we don't teach people to think about the implications of their actions and the consequences of who and what they support*

[niyad]

35. I didn't vote for that lying, war-mongering thug and his cohorts, and

neither did a majority of voters in 2000. He was anointed by 5 REPUBLICAN-appointed members of the supreme court, who at that moment abrogated our constitution. so, no, he does NOT speak for us, he only speaks for his "base" and the sheeples who adore him.
the rest of us are doing our damnedest to get someone better in there legally.

and, just for the record, none of here on DU need a civics lecture on how our government works, from ANYONE.

[coalition_unwilling]

13. AI has more credibility in its name than BFEE has in all of

its members put together, including their press flacks like Sean McCormick. One can hope for an international tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity; AI won't be the ones on trial.

[Canuckistanian]

14. Look at this!

From Answers.com:
http://www.answers.com/topic/amnesty-international

Conservative commentators have alleged that AI's reporting reflects ideological bias toward a left-wing political viewpoint in opposition to the foreign policy of the United States. To support this they point to AI's treatment of the human rights implications of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Critics of AI have suggested that AI's concern for the human rights implications of this war disproportionately criticize the effects of U.S. military action while in comparison they were less vociferous about the abuses of the Hussein regime and the human rights implications of the continued rule of this government. Examples of this criticism can be found in the links below. Supporters of AI have pointed out that AI was critical of Hussein's regime while Donald Rumsfeld was shaking the Iraqi leader by the hand, and that when the White House later released reports on the human rights record of Hussein, they depended almost entirely on AI documents that the US had ignored when Iraq was a US ally in the 1980s.

Not only hypocrites, but liars as well.

[Barrett808]

23. Very nice riposte. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

34. That's me

[Ghost Dog]

15. Anyone recall the Pinochet extradition case?

(from London to Spain to answer genocide charges): A top UK High Court (House of Lords) Judge (Law Lord) was excluded, deemed 'biased' because he was or had been a member of, or had donated to, Amnesty International.

...Seems relevant here somehow, though I'm not sure I can put my finger on it...

[neuvocat]

17. AI did not prop up Hussein to start with.

That's just pitiful of Bush.

[Rex]

18. We would like to by a vowel, but someone already took pictures

and stuck them on the Internet! Now E V E R Y O N E knows America tortures! Hell, our AG just LOVES the idea of torture to extract information. Pictures can lie, but the Pentagon didn't lie about the pictures so can't retract them as evidence.

Don't torture? They got pictures you morans!

Something else - stop preempting everything, you make the rest of us look like morans!

[rodeodance]

25. they want amnesty inter. to make available SH abuse data bases.

..."So in terms of where they might focus some of their efforts, I would just offer the humble suggestion that they might follow through in actually assisting with or providing some support to this trial for what they acknowledge is one of the great human rights abusers of recent times."

McCormack said Amnesty could help the Iraqi authorities, currently trying Saddam for a massacre of Shiite villagers in the 1980s, by making available its vast database cataloguing the
Iraq dictator's alleged abuses.

[alfredo]

28. Amnesty international feels that Saddam deserves his day in court.

Witnesses for the prosecution and defense should be able to testify without fear.

Saddam's crimes happened to the Iraqi people. What AI knows is only second-hand and would be of little use.

Now that he is in prison and being tried, all that Amnesty can do is urge a fair trial. Even the most unloved deserves a fair trial.

[shadowknows69]

39. That's crazy talk

why do you hate justice?

[alfredo]

40. It interferes with my schedule.

[Hekate]

29. Note to self: send new donation to Amnesty International

Natalie Maines speaks for me regarding Bush.

Hekate

[HuffleClaw]

32. nice spin. blech.

blaming AI for the US's crappy job in 'prosecuting' saddam ? what a crock.

[daleo]

33. Did you ever think you'd see the day

When the U.S. government dismissed Amnesty International. That used to be the Soviets.

[shadowknows69]

38. We are the Soviets

We learned our lessons well and became our greatest enemy.

[Barrett808]

42. In fact, Poppy Bush did dismiss AI in the case of Saddam

Until it was politically expedient to use AI reports to build the case against Saddam in 1990.

[Julius Civitatus]

41. This guy disagrees...

The guys on the receiving end of these punches don't agree with Sean McCormack either:


This guy can't talk right now, but I believe he thinks the rebuttal of the State Department is bullshit:


Same goes with these guys...

[Ezlivin]

43. Bush and his cronies are hypocritical liars

Also during the 1980s, the validity of Amnesty International’s reports regarding the widespread killings of Nicaraguan civilians by irregular forces based in Honduras and of Honduran civilians by security forces of their own government were repeatedly challenged by then-U.S. ambassador John Negroponte. Yet again, the U.S. government’s cover-ups were ultimately unsuccessful and Amnesty’s reports have since been acknowledged as accurate. Negroponte has since served as President Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations, followed by a stint as the “ambassador” to Iraq (while still under U.S. occupation), and currently as the first Director of National Intelligence.

A key figure in the Reagan administration’s efforts to discredit Amnesty International’s reporting on Central America was Elliot Abrams, who succeeded Enders as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America. Despite being convicted of perjury in 1991 for lying to Congress under oath, President Bush during his first term appointed Abrams as the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs. Abrams currently serves as his deputy national security adviser--ironically in charge of promoting democracy abroad.

More at http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/470

[CBHagman]

44. The administration's attitude is outrageous.

Amnesty International documents, reveals, and seeks to put an end to ALL human rights abuses, regardless of where they start or end. That the administration has a combative attitude towards them (and this isn't new; it's been going on for years) is simply appalling.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. Let's see: who are you going to believe?

Nobel=prize winning internationally respected human rights group
Or
the Bush administration?


Yeah, that's a tough one.

[november3rd]

47. This guy is a little more brash than Scott McClellan

But his problem is, he doesn't have anything better to say. Based only on what I see here in the official transcript, I'd like to encourage everyone to write the State Department Press Secretary and complain.

Contact Information

Main address:
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520

Main Switchboard:
202-647-4000
TTY:
1-800-877-8339 (Federal Relay Service)

Hotline for American Travelers:
202-647-5225

Public Communication Division:
PA/PL, Rm. 2206
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520
202-647-6575

There really isn't any excuse for criticizing Amnesty International. Give me a break! Instead of looking to correct their own shortcomings, the State Department is just denying all wrongdoing and trying to fling dirt back at Amnesty!

Shame on them.
Here's the relevant portion of the transcript:

Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
May 23, 2006

Yes. Sylvie.
QUESTION: Amnesty International --
QUESTION: Can we stay on this for a second?
MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.
QUESTION: Yeah. Do we have any information -- more about the mission by David and Elliot out there?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, yeah, I checked on this. I saw there was a report in an Israeli newspaper that they might be going to region. At this point neither of them has any plane tickets. On any given day, you could say that they're going to region. On this particular day, I can't say that. So we'll keep you up to date if there's any travel.
Sir, did you have one on this?
QUESTION: No. Different subject.
MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. All right. Sylvie.
QUESTION: So I was asking about the report of Amnesty International published today which is very critical of U.S. and says that, among other things, that torture is practiced in Guantanamo. Is it true?
MR. MCCORMACK: No. And certainly Amnesty International is entitled to their opinion. We see they're pretty good at press releases, I've noticed. Look, you know, we've gone over this time after time again. There's a group of European MPs that just went down to Guantanamo. There have been many, many outside organizations that have gone down to Guantanamo to look at exactly what is happening down at Guantanamo Bay and how exactly these individuals are treated. So no, nobody is being tortured at Guantanamo Bay.
But let me make one other point with respect to Amnesty International because I think it's -- I think it's relevant. In the years -- in the years of Saddam Hussein's rule, Amnesty International was at the forefront of bringing to light human rights abuses that were perpetrated by that regime -- terrible, terrible things. They do great work in that regard.
But when it came time to put Saddam Hussein on trial, which is happening right now, they're absent. They've done zero, zip, nothing to assist in those efforts. So, in terms of where they might focus some of their efforts, I would just offer the humble suggestion that they might follow through in actually assisting with or providing some support to this trial for what they acknowledge is one of the great human rights abusers of recent times.
QUESTION: Yeah, if I can follow up.
MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: It's the second report this week which is very critical on the U.S. handling human rights and torture. In terms of public diplomacy, do you think it's -- you are projecting the right image?
MR. MCCORMACK: What we're doing, and we talked about this a little bit last week -- look, President Bush has pointed out that the United States doesn't want to be the world's jailer, that we have no desire to be the world's jailer, and that at some point in the future would we all like to see Guantanamo Bay closed down? Absolutely. But at the moment, there's dangerous people being held at -- in Guantanamo Bay. These are people that were picked up on battlefields, planning for, engaged in various acts of terrorism around the world. These are individuals who pose a threat potentially not only to American citizens but citizens from Europe as well as around the world.
So we are working with other countries around the globe to try to return these people, repatriate these people to their home countries, but in a way so that we can assure ourselves, have a reasonable expectation that they won't being maltreated or tortured and that they won't be allowed to engage in acts of terrorism or planning for acts of terrorism. So the United States is working to try to return these people. The United States is bearing this burden in keeping these people off the street. So I think we have to reframe the debate here a little bit. Look, nobody wants Guantanamo Bay opened -- to remain open in perpetuity. Nobody is saying that. But it is serving a purpose now. It is serving the purpose of keeping these individuals who pose a threat to Americans, as well as others, off the street.
QUESTION: Amnesty International gives the example of Libya and says that you sent back detainees in Libya. Do you have the assurance that in Libya they are not tortured? How can you say they are not tortured in Libya?
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have the particulars of that case, Sylvie. But when we do return people to their home countries, we always go through a very, very careful and detailed process. And they have to be able to assure American officials and policy makers that they believe that these individuals will not be maltreated, will not be tortured. So we go through and do that in every single case.
Oftentimes, that takes a long -- it takes a long time for them to get those assurances. The negotiations with Saudi Arabia lasted quite some time. There are some states who have refused to take back individuals. And there are states with which we had to do very in-depth negotiations to make sure that these individuals wouldn't be set free or wouldn't be allowed to engage in acts of terrorism or planning for acts of terrorism. So this is a very -- this is not a process that is done on the fly. This is a very careful process that our lawyers go through.
Elise.
QUESTION: One of the charges of Amnesty is that you have been kind of contracting out a lot of the interrogations and work dealing with detainees to contractors which don't seem to be subject to the same rules and regulations in terms of torture and cruel and inhumane punishment. Can you say that all U.S. contractors are subject to the same rules and regulations and that this is not a way of getting around some of those laws against cruel and inhumane punishment?
MR. MCCORMACK: I'll let -- I'll go find an answer from the lawyers to give you a legal answer on that. But I will point out that there had been contractors that have actually stood trial and I believe that there's an individual that's actually been jailed as a result of some of the allegations that have been -- allegations that have been proven in the eyes of the court against him, in terms of maltreating individuals.
Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Just on this?
QUESTION: Quickly on --
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know. Do you -- on this topic or --
QUESTION: No, on a different subject.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.
QUESTION: Could you be a bit more specific about the support you think that the Amnesty can provide for the trial of Saddam Hussein?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, they have a vast database -- I guess for lack of a better term -- cataloging these human rights abuses during --
QUESTION: Evidence or something that --
MR. MCCORMACK: During the -- yeah, I mean, you know, part of this process is getting the information. And, you know, I would submit to you that Iraqi authorities are taking on a pretty big task here. And they're trying to not only put on a trial for Saddam Hussein and the key members of that regime, but in a larger sense, they're trying to come to closure with their past. And we would think that an NGO like Amnesty International would have an interest in assisting the Iraqi people, the now free Iraqi people, in that regard. So it was just a suggestion. We'll see if they follow through on it.
Yeah.

[Supersedeas]

48. What role does Amnesty have in invasion, regime change, and murder

prosecutions????