8 ms·
I lost respect from Amnesty International after they denounced the President of El Salvador for the mass arrests and detention of gang members. They said they w
by gjsman-1000 4y ago
I lost respect from Amnesty International after they denounced the President of El Salvador for the mass arrests and detention of gang members. They said they were guilty of "massive human rights violations" and said the president "engulf[ed] the country in a human rights crisis."
Which... sure, there might be human rights violations, I don't necessarily doubt there are innocent people caught in the crossfire. However, what they don't mention was that El Salvador had a murder rate as high as 103 per 100K in 2015, the highest murder rate in the world by country by almost double the next highest. Is that not a human rights crisis worth mentioning? It was so bad that BBC reporters were seeing dead bodies in the streets.
After the crackdowns (and, if you watch El Salvador's video, easily 90%+ of prisoners in their TCC have visible gang tattoos on them), they are now sitting at a murder rate of 8 per 100K. Not surprisingly, the president has a 90%+ approval rate.
That's what I don't get Amnesty International. From 103 to 8 per 100K. Thousands and thousands of lives will be saved every year. Is that worth the risk of a some innocent people with obvious gang tattoos being swept up in it? I'd say... yes, because we don't live in a perfect world, and El Salvador was quite literally in a state of war. But Amnesty International is more focused on their story than the people who obtained freedom from having to live in one of the most dangerous countries on earth. Think only about potential innocent victims in prison, but the 6,500 people who were murdered in a single year shouldn't be considered victims in the equation. I think it's pretty reasonable to say that, if there is a crackdown that arrests 60,000 (alleged) gang members, and has (let's say, hypothetically) 5,000 people innocent arrested (which, from the video, I think is high, but let's just say), but results in over 6,500+ lives saved every year (let alone countless rapes including of children and other crimes), there's a just cause.
I would have had much more respect for them, and I think the people of El Salvador would have had more respect for them, if they had accepted the crackdowns as a necessary evil under desperate circumstances; and then worked to identify and free anyone incorrectly swept up in the arrests. They could have done that - they could have started working hard to free the actually innocent, on a case-by-case basis. Instead they just denounced the whole thing... which, surprise, hasn't done anything. It definitely makes them feel good, even if it does literally nothing.
- detaro 4y agoIt seems kinda obvious why a human rights organization isn't signing up for your "but is it really so bad if we ignore the human rights of people we say are criminals? What's a little torture if its criminals?" line, but instead calls out human rights violations.
- gjsman-1000 4y agoI'm saying that where they lost me, is that they carefully consider the human rights of the criminal, but completely ignore the human rights of the innocent, including the right to live without being murdered. They had literally no idea on how to solve the problem outside of crackdowns. El Salvador had already tried rehabilitation for two decades in various forms, and had even sent MS-13 $25 million as part of a deal in 2014 in the hopes they would stop killing people; but they still denounced the crackdown. What else was El Salvador to do? Just continue multiple failed rehabilitation strategies and let criminals kill people openly in the streets because "human rights" requires it?