Author Topic: Amnesty International As Libyan PR Flacks  (Read 824 times)

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Amnesty International As Libyan PR Flacks
« on: May 31, 2009, 05:45:03 PM »
This sort of thing really ought to be in the back of your mind when reading news reports from such cess pools off the world:
The media or "human rights" organizations are willing to lie and be the despots' mouthpiece to preserve their access.  The perception of the media/human rights org as being involved is more important to them than truth or action.



http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWU0NjlkYmY1MWEyYjkyMjg4NTBiY2I3MjUyOWRiNzM=


An Open Letter to Amnesty International
   [Michael Rubin]

After Operation Iraqi Freedom began, Eason Jordan, the chief news executive at CNN, penned a column entitled "The News We Kept to Ourselves" about the balance between access and honest reporting. That balance is something that effects not only news media, but many other fields as well. Autocratic regimes control visas to influence reporting and activity.

Journalists reporting from southern Lebanon under Hezbollah's eye, or in Gaza under the watchful control of Hamas minders, know that their reporting will be read. Crossing certain lines can be a matter of life-and-death.

Untenured academics studying Iran, Chechnya, North Korea, or China and in need of access to country-based resources understand that should their writing displease the regime (in Chechnya's case, Russia), they will not acquire the visas they need to do the research needed to compete for tenure.

Alas, the same is true with human-rights organizations. While their pronouncements are often taken at face-value by news outlets, they are, in reality, intensely compromises organizations, often putting organizational interests above mission. Earlier this week, Libya's most prominent dissident, Fathi El Jahmi, died. His brother Mohamed El Jahmi's letter today to Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty International, may be a bit unpolished, but it is certainly worthy to ask the question whether Amnesty's desire to operate inside Libya led it to self-censor.

I append Mohamed's letter in full:

Quote
    Dear Ms. Khan,

    It is important for Fathi Eljahmi that I make this email public.  This is not about grandstanding, it is about honoring my brother’s memory and telling the entire world that I condemn Amnesty’s attitude about Fathi’s death.

    Last year in Crystal City, I listened to your powerful speech, where you talked about standing up for marginalized and oppressed people.  Today, I am sad to tell your organization’s credibility has suffered, because your team that had concluded a visit to Libya has betrayed my brother.  Instead of holding the Libyan regime accountable for murdering Fathi.  It gently asked Mr. Qadhafi’s regime to consider explaining the circumstances of Fathi’s death to his family, the report said, “The precise cause of his death, and the circumstances in which he became seriously ill while detained at the Tripoli Medical Centre, where he had been held since July 2007, should be clarified at the very least to Fathi el-Jahmi’s family members”

    Ms. Khan, is Amnesty serious or playing dumb with such request?

    Your organization received independent confirmation that Fathi was in very bad condition.  While Fathi was in Jordan Amnesty and other organizations were denied access to Fathi.  Qadhafi’s regime has consistently objected to releasing Fathi’s medical record, why would it consider Amnesty’s gentle request now?.  For many months, the Qadhafi regime kept your organization neutralized – you couldn’t issue a press release because the regime was holding the access carrot in front of your eyes.  You got your access and betrayed Fathi.  Two days ago, Diana Al-Tahawy, who is part of your Libya team told me on the phone, “This case [Fathi’s] has received so much attention and there are thousands of political prisoners whom we don’t speak for.”  Despite her comment, I was polite and courteous with Ms. Tahawy.  She now, has her wish, I hope she can help Amnesty put its credibility back to fight for political prisoners.   I talked to Ms. Tahawy twice in two days.  She initiated the first phone call.  I answered all her questions.  I should have saved my breath.

    With this report, Amnesty has been tamed by Libyan Security and perhaps will get access in the future.  The price you paid? You plead to Fathi’s killers to be good. Pathetic!

    I wish your organization best of luck.  From here on, it gives me no honor to work with an organization that takes my brother’s death in vain. 
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

vaskidmark

  • National Anthem Snob
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,799
  • WTF?
Re: Amnesty International As Libyan PR Flacks
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2009, 07:29:52 PM »
My take on "human rights organizations" is that they are marginaly OK in addressing issues in the very general sense, but are either unable or unwilling to publish specific details about specific individuals and their circumstances, or about specific "human rights abusers".

I disagree with labeling them PR flacks - let's just say they are, as noted below, more interested in access than in exposure.  And that's the part that continues to confuse the heck out of me - what good is access if you do not expose?  Do they really think the bad people are going to quit their bad behavior because one or two people knpw about it?

Even after The Killing Fields (book and movie) there are folks who think that Pol Pot was not personally that bad a guy.  Why?  Because info linking him to the tortures and killings was not coming out at the time the events were taking place (so say his "apologists").  AI bears a good deal of the burden for that.

But go back a few decades to the 70's-80's and the Irish situation - AI was all over the Crown and England regarding the treatment of Irish bombers.  Facts, figures, photos, medical records, independent (od AI or the Crown) corroboration was nearly forced into the hands of the press.  How much of that was because AI was not concerned about having access cut off?

Now that my rant is over - I'm still in favor of AI & its ilk because they do provide at least minimal exposure of some of the worst that is taking place.  Now if they would just quit looking for "glamor" cases.

stay safe.

skidmark
If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege.

Hey you kids!! Get off my lawn!!!

They keep making this eternal vigilance thing harder and harder.  Protecting the 2nd amendment is like playing PACMAN - there's no pause button so you can go to the bathroom.