Amnesty International: Truth or Propaganda?

Is Amnesty International still interested in the truth about human rights, or has it become so politicized that we can safely ignore it?

It's a legitimate question, because Amnesty has subverted itself by jumping to conclusions formed by others with a political agenda, rather than getting to the truth. Amnesty used to be at the cutting edge. Now it's out of date, the tail of the dog, fat and lazy and politicized.

As we see in the entry below, Amnesty has been so out of touch on the Blackwater/Nisoor Square controversy that it didn't even know that the federal government is readying to prosecute guards for the September 16, 2007 incident.

Further into Amnesty's Nisoor anniversary "report," we find that the foundation really wants to put Blackwater out of business - an agenda set by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Cal.) and moonbat writer Jeremy Scahill of The Nation.

Here's what Amnesty says in its "report": "Amnesty International USA has demanded that the State Department suspend contracts with contractors like Blackwater until it is clear that proper vetting mechanisms are in place to prevent further abuses."

Does Amnesty even know what the vetting mechanisms are? It gives no indication (they are amply documented among the more than 350 entries on this blog).

Waxman and Scahill can't seem to get much support from among fellow Blackwater critics. Scahill pointedly asked Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) if they would endorse pulling Blackwater's contracts, and both said no. Both said Blackwater should compete for contracts. Even Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has privately said, as US News and World Report revealed, that he thinks Blackwater is "getting a bad rap."

But in Amnesty's case, it shouldn't matter what the politicians say. The organization made a good name for itself by sticking to facts and not jumping to politicized conclusions. That was the old Amnesty International. The new Amnesty isn't worth listening to any more.

(Graphic courtesy of thedissidentfrogman.com)

Spinning Headlines or Just Plain Ignorant?

Amnesty International used to have a great reputation as a champion of prisoners of conscience and human rights in general, but in recent years it's good name for objectivity and principle has become a bit tarnished.

Take this pompous headine from its "report" marking the one-year anniversary of the shootout at Nisoor Square in Iraq: "On Anniversary of Civilian Shootings by Blackwater in Iraq, Amnesty International Calls on US Government to Hold Military Contractors Accountable."

All well and good, but where has Amnesty been over the past year? The headline shows the group is way, way behind the curve, out of touch with the facts, and reduced to a Scahillian poodle nipping and yapping to make itself relevant in the media.

That's too bad, because Amnesty could be adding a lot to the debate on private military and security contractors, and to accountability in general.

Let's pick apart Amnesty's September 22 release and get to the facts:

Amnesty: "Amnesty International today condemned the US government for failing to hold anyone accountable for the deaths."

Fact: The US government has been working hard to hold people accountable for the deaths. As Blackwaterfacts reported on August 18 - a month before Amnesty's statement - the Justice Department sent "target letters" to six Blackwater guards, the first public indication that individuals have been targeted for prosecution. Like it or not, American justice is slow and deliberate. It can't be speeded up to coincide with anniversaries.

Amnesty: "'The U.S. government has failed to ensure legal accountability for widespread abuses by civilian contractors,' said Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA. 'Iraqi and U.S. investigations have determined that this assault was an unjustifiable use of force against civilians. And yet, a year later, we are still waiting for justice in this case. Robust protections must be in place to guarantee that personnel are held accountable for indiscriminate shootings and killings of civilians.'"

Fact: Cox is mistaken; the accountability measures are in place, as this blog reported last November. Congress has modernized its laws and the administration has tightened its procedures. Amnesty International seems not to realize that Blackwater CEO Erik Prince personally asked Congress for tightened accountability in his testimony before the Waxman Committee on October 2, 2007.

Finally, Amnesty quotes Congressman David Price (D-NC) about the need to expand the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA).

Again, Amnesty is way behind. Blackwater Chairman Erik Prince publicly called for accountability under MEJA. The Blackwater chief endorsed Congressman Price's call for other types of expanded accountability nearly a year ago during the Waxman hearings. The House, with full bipartisan support, overwhelmingly passed the Blackwater-approved legislation a few days later.

The timeline shows that Blackwater has been further out-front on the accountability issue than has Amnesty International.

Harvard scholar says Blackwater may have Darfur solution

A scholar at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government writes in the Boston Globe that Blackwater USA might have the solution to the human tragedy in Darfur.

The scholar, Rebecca Ulam Weiner, discusses the failure of the African Union, NATO and the United Nations to help bring an end to the Darfur horrors and other atrocities in Africa. She argues that private military companies are right for the job - but those she interviews say that world leaders don't have the political will.

"There's little question that companies like Blackwater could be more effective operationally than the African Union, which has been hampered by its peacekeepers' lack of command and control experience. Private military companies boast a roster of former special forces officers and law enforcement officers who are accustomed to volatile conflict and post-conflict areas like Sudan," Weiner says.

"Blackwater also subjects all of its personnel to an impressive array of extra training-whether they're training to work in Baghdad or the firm's North Carolina headquarters. They take classes in international humanitarian law, leadership, ethics, regional awareness, and ''customs and traditions.' They've recently approached Amnesty International about teaching human rights education classes. And the International Peace Operations Association [IPOA] boasts that its code of conduct was written by human rights lawyers.

"The industry also claims that it's far cheaper than its multilateral or military counterparts. ''We offer the ability to create a right-sized solution-which creates a cost savings right off the bat,' says Taylor. By contrast, [IPOA President Doug] Brooks notes, ''NATO is insanely expensive; it's not a cost-effective organization. Neither is the [African Union]. Private companies would be much, much cheaper. When we compared their costs to most UN operations, we came up with 10 to 20 percent of what the UN would normally charge.'"