4 ms·

The thing is that, there's no way to defend human rights without it being "political" and seen as partisan. There are always powerful political forces not want

The thing is that, there's no way to defend human rights without it being "political" and seen as partisan. There are always powerful political forces not wanting to recognize human rights violations as human rights violations, or they wouldn't need organized opposition in the first place. I'm pretty sure Amnesty International has been accused of being a partisan political movement for as long as it's existed, by those who don't like what it's critisizing.

Spivak 4y ago
It's similar to the people who have come out of the woodwork against the ACLU now that more than just the vague governmental powers that be oppose the liberties they're fighting for. If you ever thought they weren't political it's because you weren't part of the groups they were fighting.
jack_riminton 4y ago
Read the link I posted and tell me whose human rights they were standing up for in their dodgy report
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  Amnesty International operates consistently using a framework of international laws of war and human rights standards, applying them equally to all countries. Or at least that's their goal, certainly sometimes they have failed, because of biases. Is this one of those times? The article you posted says that Amnesty says international laws and standards of war say you should not put military bases in residential areas. Have they been consistent at calling this out for all countries? I think so? Are these in fact standards under international human rights laws? I think so? So this is not a departure for how Amnesty usually operates. People often think that such laws and standards ought not to apply to the side "in the right"; or that they ought not to apply when the side in the right needs to violate them in order to win. Or that a given standard is wrong and should not be considered part of international law and human rights standard. Or you can think that the framework of international law is unrealistic and pointless and isn't even the right framework. In general, or in this case. Some of these may be reasonable positions. But Amnesty has always operated from that framework, and has consistently critisized any side that puts military equipment in residential areas. So, it's possible they made a mistake here in some way, but it's in a way that is pretty consistent with how they have behaved for decades and how they do things. So I don't see any reason to say they have "morphed", and that they are now "partisan" in a way they weren't before. Their theory is that they *avoid* being partisan by critiquing both sides of a military conflict to the same standard, you can disagree with this stance, but I don't see any reason to think they acted from "partisan" motivation rather than from trying to stick to their usual way of doing things. The complaint seems to be that some people wanted them to be partisan on the part of Ukraine (which may be reasonable), while they tried to apply same standards to Ukraine and Russia. There is no "morphing", this is what they do. You can think what they do is the totally wrong approach, for any number of reasons -- but it's not new.
  - jack_riminton 4y ago
    They were invaded! How do you not put military equipment in a residential area that is being invaded. Utter lunacy.

Spivak 4y ago

It's similar to the people who have come out of the woodwork against the ACLU now that more than just the vague governmental powers that be oppose the liberties they're fighting for. If you ever thought they weren't political it's because you weren't part of the groups they were fighting.

jack_riminton 4y ago

Read the link I posted and tell me whose human rights they were standing up for in their dodgy report

jrochkind1 4y ago
Amnesty International operates consistently using a framework of international laws of war and human rights standards, applying them equally to all countries. Or at least that's their goal, certainly sometimes they have failed, because of biases. Is this one of those times? The article you posted says that Amnesty says international laws and standards of war say you should not put military bases in residential areas. Have they been consistent at calling this out for all countries? I think so? Are these in fact standards under international human rights laws? I think so? So this is not a departure for how Amnesty usually operates. People often think that such laws and standards ought not to apply to the side "in the right"; or that they ought not to apply when the side in the right needs to violate them in order to win. Or that a given standard is wrong and should not be considered part of international law and human rights standard. Or you can think that the framework of international law is unrealistic and pointless and isn't even the right framework. In general, or in this case. Some of these may be reasonable positions. But Amnesty has always operated from that framework, and has consistently critisized any side that puts military equipment in residential areas. So, it's possible they made a mistake here in some way, but it's in a way that is pretty consistent with how they have behaved for decades and how they do things. So I don't see any reason to say they have "morphed", and that they are now "partisan" in a way they weren't before. Their theory is that they *avoid* being partisan by critiquing both sides of a military conflict to the same standard, you can disagree with this stance, but I don't see any reason to think they acted from "partisan" motivation rather than from trying to stick to their usual way of doing things. The complaint seems to be that some people wanted them to be partisan on the part of Ukraine (which may be reasonable), while they tried to apply same standards to Ukraine and Russia. There is no "morphing", this is what they do. You can think what they do is the totally wrong approach, for any number of reasons -- but it's not new.
- jack_riminton 4y ago
  They were invaded! How do you not put military equipment in a residential area that is being invaded. Utter lunacy.