3 ms·

This seems like a stretch as HRW has been one of the main organizations casting a light on CIA torture: https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/03/us-ex-detainees-des

This seems like a stretch as HRW has been one of the main organizations casting a light on CIA torture: https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/03/us-ex-detainees-describe-unreported-cia-torture https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/10/03/us-ex-detainees-describe...

dmix 10y ago
Red Cross exposed that not HRW. There was no way they could ignore that after it became public, everyone jumped on that. But without cherry picking the few times they did something, there are far far more times they didn't. Their politicized role in Syria is a great example. But there are plenty of other times they don't call out the CIA. One example: > HRW’s accommodation to U.S. policy has also extended to renditions—the illegal practice of kidnapping and transporting suspects around the planet to be interrogated and often tortured in allied countries. In early 2009, when it was reported that the newly elected Obama administration was leaving this program intact, HRW’s then Washington advocacy director Tom Malinowski argued that “under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place” for renditions, and encouraged patience: “they want to design a system that doesn’t result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured,” he said, “but designing that system is going to take some time.” And their connections run deep: > The advisory committee for HRW’s Americas Division has even boasted the presence of a former Central Intelligence Agency official, Miguel Díaz. According to his State Department biography, Díaz served as a CIA analyst and also provided “oversight of U.S. intelligence activities in Latin America” for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.9 As of 2012, Díaz focused, as he once did for the CIA, on Central America for the State Department’s DRL—the same bureau now to be supervised by Malinowski. > One underlying factor for HRW’s general conformity with U.S. policy was clarified on July 8, 2013, when Roth took to Twitter to congratulate his colleague Malinowski on his nomination to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). Malinowski was poised to further human rights as a senior-level foreign-policy official for an administration that convenes weekly “Terror Tuesday” meetings. In these meetings, Obama and his staffers deliberate the meting out of extrajudicial drone assassinations around the planet, reportedly working from a secret “kill list” that has included several U.S. citizens and a 17-year-old girl. > Her HRW biography, the vice chair of HRW’s board of directors, Susan Manilow, describes herself as “a longtime friend to Bill Clinton,” and helped manage his campaign finances. (HRW once signed a letter to Clinton advocating the prosecution of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes; HRW made no case for holding Clinton accountable for NATO’s civilian-killing bombings despite concluding that they constituted “violations of international humanitarian law.”). Etc, etc. http://nacla.org/news/2014/2/4/hypocrisy-human-rights-watch http://nacla.org/news/2014/2/4/hypocrisy-human-rights-watch Diplomacy is full of compromise and backroom dealing. I'm not naive about that. But it's hard to have an organization this big and influential without being itself compromised by agencies and agendas, without some real outward effort, transparency, and clear separation from the state - which I don't see here at all. Not to mention it having a natural slant from the various board members and financers who are all powerful Americans. But regardless you can't deny HRW is very slanted to US policy. It's impossible to follow geopolitics in the media without seeing their name constantly pop up in support of attacking Americas current adversaries of the day, in a very narrow way.
- jamesgblaine 10y ago
  And NACLA is soft on the Venezuelan and Bolivian regimes despite all the abuses there. No organization, institution, or living person meets the internet's standard for consistency. My providing an example is your "cherry-picking." Have a nice evening.
  - dmix 10y ago
    NACLA just conveniently collected examples that I've repeatedly noticed in the media and in books over the years. They're tiny and unknown, so it's not the same. HRW is far bigger and has some real power. They have their hands in everything. Which conviently backs US policy as if they were some independent 3rd party non profit. It's much more influential that way. Plus they don't have the baggage of acting consistent like the state department usually has to do while NSA/CIA/DoD run wild. So they are a useful example of being an extension of US policy of exporting morality and human rights - selectively. Which is my whole original point.

dmix 10y ago

Red Cross exposed that not HRW. There was no way they could ignore that after it became public, everyone jumped on that. But without cherry picking the few times they did something, there are far far more times they didn't. Their politicized role in Syria is a great example. But there are plenty of other times they don't call out the CIA. One example: > HRW’s accommodation to U.S. policy has also extended to renditions—the illegal practice of kidnapping and transporting suspects around the planet to be interrogated and often tortured in allied countries. In early 2009, when it was reported that the newly elected Obama administration was leaving this program intact, HRW’s then Washington advocacy director Tom Malinowski argued that “under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place” for renditions, and encouraged patience: “they want to design a system that doesn’t result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured,” he said, “but designing that system is going to take some time.” And their connections run deep: > The advisory committee for HRW’s Americas Division has even boasted the presence of a former Central Intelligence Agency official, Miguel Díaz. According to his State Department biography, Díaz served as a CIA analyst and also provided “oversight of U.S. intelligence activities in Latin America” for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.9 As of 2012, Díaz focused, as he once did for the CIA, on Central America for the State Department’s DRL—the same bureau now to be supervised by Malinowski. > One underlying factor for HRW’s general conformity with U.S. policy was clarified on July 8, 2013, when Roth took to Twitter to congratulate his colleague Malinowski on his nomination to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). Malinowski was poised to further human rights as a senior-level foreign-policy official for an administration that convenes weekly “Terror Tuesday” meetings. In these meetings, Obama and his staffers deliberate the meting out of extrajudicial drone assassinations around the planet, reportedly working from a secret “kill list” that has included several U.S. citizens and a 17-year-old girl. > Her HRW biography, the vice chair of HRW’s board of directors, Susan Manilow, describes herself as “a longtime friend to Bill Clinton,” and helped manage his campaign finances. (HRW once signed a letter to Clinton advocating the prosecution of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes; HRW made no case for holding Clinton accountable for NATO’s civilian-killing bombings despite concluding that they constituted “violations of international humanitarian law.”). Etc, etc. http://nacla.org/news/2014/2/4/hypocrisy-human-rights-watch http://nacla.org/news/2014/2/4/hypocrisy-human-rights-watch Diplomacy is full of compromise and backroom dealing. I'm not naive about that. But it's hard to have an organization this big and influential without being itself compromised by agencies and agendas, without some real outward effort, transparency, and clear separation from the state - which I don't see here at all. Not to mention it having a natural slant from the various board members and financers who are all powerful Americans. But regardless you can't deny HRW is very slanted to US policy. It's impossible to follow geopolitics in the media without seeing their name constantly pop up in support of attacking Americas current adversaries of the day, in a very narrow way.

jamesgblaine 10y ago
And NACLA is soft on the Venezuelan and Bolivian regimes despite all the abuses there. No organization, institution, or living person meets the internet's standard for consistency. My providing an example is your "cherry-picking." Have a nice evening.
- dmix 10y ago
  NACLA just conveniently collected examples that I've repeatedly noticed in the media and in books over the years. They're tiny and unknown, so it's not the same. HRW is far bigger and has some real power. They have their hands in everything. Which conviently backs US policy as if they were some independent 3rd party non profit. It's much more influential that way. Plus they don't have the baggage of acting consistent like the state department usually has to do while NSA/CIA/DoD run wild. So they are a useful example of being an extension of US policy of exporting morality and human rights - selectively. Which is my whole original point.