>There has been precedence of bias in both organizations as found here [1] and here [2]. This following paragraph provides a good summary of the criticism: >In

>There has been precedence of bias in both organizations as found here [1] and here [2]. This following paragraph provides a good summary of the criticism: >In May 2014 an open letter was published criticising Human Rights Watch for what were described as its close ties to the government of the United States... You directly called the paragraph that accuses HRW of "close ties to the government of the United States" a good summary of the criticism. You said "the criticism". Not "criticism of Human rights watch and not Amnesty International". Every reasonable person will assume on first reading that you meant Amnesty International has also been accused of pro US bias. The strongest reading of your argument is that you intended to say Amnesty International is biased towards the US but couldn't support your claim with evidence because all evidence points to the contrary. The alternate reading is that you somehow think that criticism by countries that they have accused of human rights abuses somehow makes them less credible because they don't meet the literally unattainable standard of being "100%, indisputably neutral", and I don't think you are that stupid. The source isn't "100%, indisputably neutral" is a tautology. 7 countries, including the US, that have been accused of human rights violations by Amnesty International dispute those accusations. That in no way negatively impacts their credibility with respect to them pushing a story that you believe is US propaganda. Yet for the current explanation of your argument to hold, you must believe that it does.