25 Replies to “Beslan and Hamas [Dan Collins]”

1. Bob Reed says:

   January 16, 2009 at 8:29 am

   “Upholding human rights has come to mean protecting anyone who cries “Help!” — even if that person is a thief, a murderer or a terrorist.”

   Just another example of what moral relativism hath wrought. Very much like intolerance in the name of tolerance, and PC speech…More contraditctions in terms…

   I will say though, I am in complete agreement with a comment that thor made in a thread yesterday where he said that Israel should eliminate Hamas once and for all in order to avoid this being just another exercise in suffering…

   https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=14109#comment-631867

   And the maggots that are profiting by providing band-aid assistance, while necessarily in league with Hamas itself; they.should.rot.in.jail…

   They’ll get theirs in the end, but some of us would like to see them get their due in this world!

   It tests the limits of my ability to be forgiving…

2. AJB says:

   January 16, 2009 at 9:12 am

   I realize that I have a reputation around here for not responding to responses to my posts. I hope to change that in this thread and engage in actual debate.

   Anyways, I don’t see how human rights groups like AI and HRW are going out of their way to defend the supposed enemies of America. If anything, there are more than willing to criticize all human rights abusers, including leftist leaders in Latin America and Middle East terrorists. The problem you seem to have with them is that they are consistent and have the nerve to criticize the U.S. and its proxies when they commit violations of basic human rights. The ideas of human rights only lose their meaning when they are used as a tool for ulterior motives. If anything, Bush’s use of Saddam’s atrocities to justify his invasion of Iraq did more to damage the concept of “human rights” than any NGO or IGO could have.

3. Carin says:

   January 16, 2009 at 9:21 am

   So … Saddam’s atrocities should have simply been allowed to continue, because “criticizing” is about the limit of what is allowed?

4. Pablo says:

   January 16, 2009 at 9:23 am

   If anything, there are more than willing to criticize all human rights abusers, including leftist leaders in Latin America and Middle East terrorists.

   But where do they exert their most strenuous efforts?

   As Amnesty releases its annual report on human rights for 2006, amid highly choreographed public relations events, and repeating the familiar condemnations of Israel and America, NGO Monitor has also published a report on Amnesty’s activities in the Middle East. The result is not a pretty picture for those clinging to the “halo effect.”

   Using a detailed and sophisticated qualitative model for comparing relative resources devoted to the different countries, this report clearly shows that in 2006, Amnesty singled out Israel for condemnation of human rights to a far greater extent than Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Egypt, and other chronic abusers of human rights.

   During the year, Amnesty issued 48 publications critical of Israel, compared to 35 for Iran, 2 for Saudi Arabia, and only 7 for Syria. Many of the attacks directed at Israel took place during the war with Hezbollah, but this terror group and state-within-a-state also got relatively little attention from Amnesty.

   Furthermore, as Amnesty has almost no professional researchers, many of the “factual” claims in these reports were provided by “eyewitnesses,” whose political affiliations and credibility can be only guessed. And the language used in these reports also reflects an obsessive and unjustified singling out of Israel, with frequent use of terms such “disproportionate attacks,” “war crimes,” and “violations of international humanitarian law.”

   Read the whole thing.

   The problem you seem to have with them is that they are consistent and have the nerve to criticize the U.S. and its proxies when they commit violations of basic human rights.

   What, exactly, makes that seem to be the case?

5. Andrew the Noisy says:

   January 16, 2009 at 9:25 am

   How does it go?

   “When you are in power, I ask you to give me my rights, because that is your culture. When I am in power, I take away your rights, because that is my culture.”

   The Mind is its own Place, and there within, can make a Hell out of Heaven, or a Heaven out of Hell.

   -Satan in Paradise Lost

6. Pablo says:

   January 16, 2009 at 9:30 am

   IT’S ALWAYS SAD when a solid, trustworthy institution loses its bearings and joins in the partisan fracas that nowadays passes for political discourse. It’s particularly sad when the institution is Amnesty International, which for more than 40 years has been a tough, single-minded defender of political prisoners around the world and a scourge of left- and right-wing dictators alike. True, Amnesty continues to keep track of the world’s political prisoners, as it has always done, and its reports remain a vital source of human rights information. But lately the organization has tended to save its most vitriolic condemnations not for the world’s dictators but for the United States.

   That vitriol reached a new level this week when, at a news conference held to mark the publication of Amnesty’s annual report, the organization’s secretary general, Irene Khan, called the U.S. detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the “gulag of our times.” In her written introduction to the report, Ms. Khan also mentioned only two countries at length: Sudan and the United States, the “unrivalled political, military and economic hyper-power,” which “thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights.”

   Surely, this is some right wing nut job complaining! Or, the WaPo editorial board.

   Like Amnesty, we, too, have written extensively about U.S. prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We have done so not only because the phenomenon is disturbing in its own right but also because it gives undemocratic regimes around the world an excuse to justify their own use of torture and indefinite detention and because it damages the U.S. government’s ability to promote human rights.

   But we draw the line at the use of the word “gulag” or at the implication that the United States has somehow become the modern equivalent of Stalin’s Soviet Union. Guantanamo Bay is an ad hoc creation, designed to contain captured enemy combatants in wartime. Abuses there — including new evidence of desecrating the Koran — have been investigated and discussed by the FBI, the press and, to a still limited extent, the military. The Soviet gulag, by contrast, was a massive forced labor complex consisting of thousands of concentration camps and hundreds of exile villages through which more than 20 million people passed during Stalin’s lifetime and whose existence was not acknowledged until after his death. Its modern equivalent is not Guantanamo Bay, but the prisons of Cuba, where Amnesty itself says a new generation of prisoners of conscience reside; or the labor camps of North Korea, which were set up on Stalinist lines; or China’s laogai , the true size of which isn’t even known; or, until recently, the prisons of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

   Worrying about the use of a word may seem like mere semantics, but it is not. Turning a report on prisoner detention into another excuse for Bush-bashing or America-bashing undermines Amnesty’s legitimate criticisms of U.S. policies and weakens the force of its investigations of prison systems in closed societies. It also gives the administration another excuse to dismiss valid objections to its policies as “hysterical.”

   Huh. Consistency does not seem to be the problem.

7. Civilis says:

   January 16, 2009 at 9:38 am

   The problem is that the solutions offered by “Human Rights Groups” don’t solve any of the actual, real world problems. Yes, they issue another pro forma declaration that Hamas should stop firing rockets at Israel, and calls for both sides to be investigated for human rights violations.

   Does anyone expect any human rights tribunal to fairly investigate all parties involved, and does anyone expect Hamas, Hebollah, and Iran to live up to the spirit of the law? Any international tribunal regarding such a politically sensitive area is going to be about politics, not about “justice” or “human rights”.

   Hamas wants Israeli civilians dead, and Hamas largely does not care about Palestinian civilian casualties as long as Israel takes the blame. Why would they put themselves at a military disadvantage or give up a PR advantage for the sake of Israeli or Palestinian human rights?

8. ThomasD says:

   January 16, 2009 at 9:38 am

   In their collectivism they elevate an ideal of the individual over, you know, actual individuals. The net results is innocents suffer while the guilty are rewarded.

   Modern science has given us many things that kill parasites, yet we choose not to use them.

9. ThomasD says:

   January 16, 2009 at 9:43 am

   And judging from the reaction to events in Gaza it would appear the ‘international community’ places a value of human life at approximately one Gazan to every 1000 African.

   On a similar scale Gitmo detainees would appear to have almost infinite worth.

10. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    January 16, 2009 at 11:58 am

    Nice find Pablo. Those bloody fascists at the WAPO. Btw, this quote was kind of, well hilarious: “including new evidence of desecrating the Koran”. This “abuse” is akin to lopping off heads, forced labor, starvation, actual torture, etc? If you’re dense, here’s the answer. No, it isn’t.

11. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    January 16, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    That was very clumsily written. I realize that they are saying that NO the desecration of the koran is NOT the same as the abuses of the gulag, but to call the desecration of a koran an abuse at all is silly. Is it wrong? Yes, but an abuse?

12. Dan Collins says:

    January 16, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    Every time a soldier desecrates a Koran, a Muslima loses her clitoris.

13. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:

    January 16, 2009 at 12:50 pm

    Or, the WaPo editorial board.

    Well, that’s because The Pravda has changed. Teh ONE now says that he’s going to *try* to close the detention facility at *some time* before the end of his first term.

    The WaPo is just covering its ass in case further revisions of The Pravda become necessary in the coming weeks.

14. Pablo says:

    January 16, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    I realize that I have a reputation around here for not responding to responses to my posts. I hope to change that in this thread and engage in actual debate.

    Shoulda known that wasn’t gonna happen.

15. maggie katzen says:

    January 16, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    patience, Pablo.

16. thor says:

    January 16, 2009 at 3:10 pm

    Julia Latynina, the author, is so much more than a radio talk show host. Actually she’s used to be on TV, but you know how the TV business went after freedom-loving Putin came to power. She and her cohorts at that little radio channel have all lost jobs in TV and the media thanks to Putin. That radio station of dissent, Ekho Moskvy, is actually now owned by Gazprom so who knows when it will be shut down as well. Before speaking of anything political Latynina was a writer of detective novels. I mention that because she possesses a narrative style in her Op/Ed pieces that’s somewhat rare in that they are constructed with such literary quality, like Christopher Hitchens, that they a delight to read and, alas, one shouldn’t forget you are reading an English translation, meaning her high fastballs would come at you even faster in her native Russian. You can occasionally hear her on NPR from Washington here in the States.

    Is she a liberal? In Russia liberal means pro-Western, so yes, she is considered a Russian liberal. Whether or not you might think her liberal or conservative in definitively American terms I wouldn’t know. She tackles issues in a stand alone manner, which, again, is a rare quality in Op/Ed writing.

    Is she hot? She is thin with a nice ass, has flowing frizzy hair (dark brownish red), and a all-around nerdy-hippie look and a quality face, and so yes, she is, in keeping with certain Russian conventions, quite goddamn bangable. And she’s hetero, though we all know that’s not meant to infer she’s not open to occasional experimentation, which is in keeping with Russian sexual mores as well.

    Will she die from two control shots behind the ear while fumbling for her keys in her her flat’s podez? 40/60 chance.

17. Mikey NTH says:

    January 16, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    Not only do the terrorist groups need to be fought, but those who finance them, arm them, train them, propagandize for them. This fight will be a long fight, and it will invlove police work, propaganda, clandestine operations, and military force.

    It will be a long war and much won’t be heard about for years. I wish it was different, but it isn’t.

18. Steynian 310 « Free Canuckistan! says:

    January 16, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    […] THE CONCEPT of “human rights was developed to help battle totalitarian regimes. It would appear, however, […]

19. MAJ (P) John says:

    January 16, 2009 at 6:56 pm

    “Will she die from two control shots behind the ear while fumbling for her keys in her her flat’s podez? 40/60 chance.”

    I fear the odds are probably a little worse than that. Brave woman. Very brave woman.

20. Mikey NTH says:

    January 16, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    And I agree with Maj. John and thor – a brave woman. Actually speaking truth to real power.

21. Pablo says:

    January 16, 2009 at 8:36 pm

    It’s nice to know that you’re capable of not being a flaming, platitude spewing asshole, thor. But it’s a shame that you usually choose to opt out.

22. Bob Reed says:

    January 16, 2009 at 8:43 pm

    Nice article thor, thanks for forwarding to Dan to circulate to the rest of us at PW…

    I liked this woman’s assessment. Too bad she doesn’t consider moving here and taking up journalism…

    She’d be a hell of an improvement over a lot of what we have passing for that here…

    Also, I’m impressed that you didn’t flame anyone in your comment! I thought it very cogent, informative, and revealing of your fondness for Russians…

    Here’s a dirty little secret; I always liked the ones I met along the way too…

    Best Wishes

23. MAJ (P) John says:

    January 17, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    “I realize that I have a reputation around here for not responding to responses to my posts. I hope to change that in this thread and engage in actual debate.”

    Comment by AJB on 1/16 @ 9:12 am #

    Heh, he said over twenty-four hours later…

24. thor says:

    January 17, 2009 at 3:08 pm

    Nah, Bob, Yulia Latynina belongs in Russia and would wince with confusion to the suggestion she should move. Her form, style and body of work suggest a woman who is serious of her career.

    They kill journalists. They kill human rights advocates. They kill priests. They kill people who do not bend. And before you disparage American journalists, they killed Danny Pearl too.

    The broader implications, etc…

25. Stasonus says:

    January 22, 2009 at 10:43 am

    Как бы мы все не старались все равно будет так, как задумала вселенная. Пока я читала мой мозг умер.

Comments are closed.