oh joy - Group blasts Jordan for lawmaker arrests

[Ban Hammer 13,965]

AMMAN, Jordan - Human Rights Watch criticized Jordan's arrest of four lawmakers who visited the family of slain terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, calling it a violation of freedom of expression.

"Expressing condolences to the family of a dead man, however murderous he might be, is not a crime," Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division, said in a statement Saturday.

The lawmakers, members of Jordan's largest opposition group, visited al-Zarqawi's family home in Zarqa, 17 miles northeast of Amman, on June 9, two days after al-Qaida in Iraq leader was killed in a U.S. airstrike north of Baghdad.

One of the legislators, Mohammed Abu Fares, described al-Zarqawi as a "martyr."

Abu Fares and three others — Jaafar al-Hourani, Ali Abu Sukkar and Ibrahim al-Mashwakhi — were arrested two days later and charged with "instigating sectarian strike" and "fueling national discord." They remain jailed, serving 15-day detention orders.

Whitson said "a dubious comment about an alleged terrorist leader" should not be considered "incitement to violence."

"Going after these people is an unacceptable violation of their basic rights to free speech," she said.

The New York-based rights group urged Jordan not to "roll back on its commitment to fully respect freedom of expression."

"Rather than implement the reforms it promised, the government of Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit is giving the intelligence agencies, the police and prosecutors free rein to clamp down on legitimate speech," it said.

Jordanian government officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

The legislators' visit sparked two protests in the past week, in which thousands of Jordanians flooded Amman's streets demanding that King Abdullah II dissolve parliament.

Families of those killed the November triple hotel bombings in Amman — for which al-Zarqawi had claimed responsibility — have demanded parliament punish the lawmakers.

---------

bold letters = my emphasis

now where is the outrage about the usa sticking their nose in this?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Well.... I don't think a protest by the Human Rights Watch group, even if they are based in New York, exactly equals "the USA sticking its nose in this."

Edited June 18, 2006 by wife_of_mahmoud

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't have any problem with Human Rights groups condemning and drawing attention to human rights abuses wherever they might take place.

But I do have a problem with human rights groups being condemned as irresponsible liars when they also draw attention to the goings on at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I talking specifically of Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The latter was even the subject of a senate hearing last year to decide if their funding should be cut, because they were saying 'unfavourable things' about government policy.

Since when should a charity group, have to cow-tow to the political world-view of a select group of politicians. As I see it, the whole point of organisations like that is that they do not (and should not) owe political allegiance to one particular group of politicians, politicians who I might add totally miss the point of what they are trying to do.

This is just one more example of how certain people are mangling our discourse to support the 'war on terror'

Edited to add - I'm still not entirely sure what is mean't by 'war on terror'. I hear lots of lofty idealism, but I don't see that backed up by action.

Edited June 18, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,965]

I don't have any problem with Human Rights groups condemning and drawing attention to human rights abuses wherever they might take place.

But I do have a problem with human rights groups being condemned as irresponsible liars when they also draw attention to the goings on at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I talking specifically of Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The latter was even the subject of a senate hearing last year to decide if their funding should be cut, because they were saying 'unfavourable things' about government policy.

Since when should a charity group, have to cow-tow to the political world-view of a select group of politicians. As I see it, the whole point of organisations like that is that they do not (and should not) owe political allegiance to one particular group of politicians, politicians who I might add totally miss the point of what they are trying to do.

This is just one more example of how certain people are mangling our discourse to support the 'war on terror'

Edited to add - I'm still not entirely sure what is mean't by 'war on terror'. I hear lots of lofty idealism, but I don't see that backed up by action.

how many of those written articles about abu ghraib or gb were actually visited by those writing the reports? i know of one un written report in which the author never was in gb.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't have any problem with Human Rights groups condemning and drawing attention to human rights abuses wherever they might take place.

But I do have a problem with human rights groups being condemned as irresponsible liars when they also draw attention to the goings on at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I talking specifically of Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The latter was even the subject of a senate hearing last year to decide if their funding should be cut, because they were saying 'unfavourable things' about government policy.

Since when should a charity group, have to cow-tow to the political world-view of a select group of politicians. As I see it, the whole point of organisations like that is that they do not (and should not) owe political allegiance to one particular group of politicians, politicians who I might add totally miss the point of what they are trying to do.

This is just one more example of how certain people are mangling our discourse to support the 'war on terror'

Edited to add - I'm still not entirely sure what is mean't by 'war on terror'. I hear lots of lofty idealism, but I don't see that backed up by action.

how many of those written articles about abu ghraib or gb were actually visited by those writing the reports? i know of one un written report in which the author never was in gb.

So what? Do you think these agencies are granted access to every hell-hole in the 3rd world?

In any case I'm not talking about the UN - but Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The government seizes on abuses by the likes of Iran, China and North Korea but condemns it for attacking similar abuses perpetrated by the US. There's clearly a degree of hypocrisy there - since when should a apolitical charity have to cowtow to the whims of partisan politics?

[maria_b84 0]

[Ban Hammer 13,965]

I don't have any problem with Human Rights groups condemning and drawing attention to human rights abuses wherever they might take place.

But I do have a problem with human rights groups being condemned as irresponsible liars when they also draw attention to the goings on at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I talking specifically of Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The latter was even the subject of a senate hearing last year to decide if their funding should be cut, because they were saying 'unfavourable things' about government policy.

Since when should a charity group, have to cow-tow to the political world-view of a select group of politicians. As I see it, the whole point of organisations like that is that they do not (and should not) owe political allegiance to one particular group of politicians, politicians who I might add totally miss the point of what they are trying to do.

This is just one more example of how certain people are mangling our discourse to support the 'war on terror'

Edited to add - I'm still not entirely sure what is mean't by 'war on terror'. I hear lots of lofty idealism, but I don't see that backed up by action.

how many of those written articles about abu ghraib or gb were actually visited by those writing the reports? i know of one un written report in which the author never was in gb.

So what? Do you think these agencies are granted access to every hell-hole in the 3rd world?

In any case I'm not talking about the UN - but Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The government seizes on abuses by the likes of Iran, China and North Korea but condemns it for attacking similar abuses perpetrated by the US. There's clearly a degree of hypocrisy there - since when should a apolitical charity have to cowtow to the whims of partisan politics?

what was the basis for such reports? personal visits to such? or secondhand interviews?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't have any problem with Human Rights groups condemning and drawing attention to human rights abuses wherever they might take place.

But I do have a problem with human rights groups being condemned as irresponsible liars when they also draw attention to the goings on at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I talking specifically of Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The latter was even the subject of a senate hearing last year to decide if their funding should be cut, because they were saying 'unfavourable things' about government policy.

Since when should a charity group, have to cow-tow to the political world-view of a select group of politicians. As I see it, the whole point of organisations like that is that they do not (and should not) owe political allegiance to one particular group of politicians, politicians who I might add totally miss the point of what they are trying to do.

This is just one more example of how certain people are mangling our discourse to support the 'war on terror'

Edited to add - I'm still not entirely sure what is mean't by 'war on terror'. I hear lots of lofty idealism, but I don't see that backed up by action.

how many of those written articles about abu ghraib or gb were actually visited by those writing the reports? i know of one un written report in which the author never was in gb.

So what? Do you think these agencies are granted access to every hell-hole in the 3rd world?

In any case I'm not talking about the UN - but Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The government seizes on abuses by the likes of Iran, China and North Korea but condemns it for attacking similar abuses perpetrated by the US. There's clearly a degree of hypocrisy there - since when should a apolitical charity have to cowtow to the whims of partisan politics?

what was the basis for such reports? personal visits to such? or secondhand interviews?

Why ask me - they have websites you know

[Ban Hammer 13,965]

I don't have any problem with Human Rights groups condemning and drawing attention to human rights abuses wherever they might take place.

But I do have a problem with human rights groups being condemned as irresponsible liars when they also draw attention to the goings on at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I talking specifically of Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The latter was even the subject of a senate hearing last year to decide if their funding should be cut, because they were saying 'unfavourable things' about government policy.

Since when should a charity group, have to cow-tow to the political world-view of a select group of politicians. As I see it, the whole point of organisations like that is that they do not (and should not) owe political allegiance to one particular group of politicians, politicians who I might add totally miss the point of what they are trying to do.

This is just one more example of how certain people are mangling our discourse to support the 'war on terror'

Edited to add - I'm still not entirely sure what is mean't by 'war on terror'. I hear lots of lofty idealism, but I don't see that backed up by action.

how many of those written articles about abu ghraib or gb were actually visited by those writing the reports? i know of one un written report in which the author never was in gb.

So what? Do you think these agencies are granted access to every hell-hole in the 3rd world?

In any case I'm not talking about the UN - but Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The government seizes on abuses by the likes of Iran, China and North Korea but condemns it for attacking similar abuses perpetrated by the US. There's clearly a degree of hypocrisy there - since when should a apolitical charity have to cowtow to the whims of partisan politics?

what was the basis for such reports? personal visits to such? or secondhand interviews?

Why ask me - they have websites you know

dodger!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

dodger!

I'd end up paraphrasing them anyway - better to read it for yourself from the source.

Its just interesting that we condemn other countries as a result of their investigations, but condemn the organisation when it points the finger at the US for its approach to human rights post 9/11.

[iceyspots 0]

oh no... ::ducks and covers::

[Ban Hammer 13,965]

dodger!

I'd end up paraphrasing them anyway - better to read it for yourself from the source.

Its just interesting that we condemn other countries as a result of their investigations, but condemn the organisation when it points the finger at the US for its approach to human rights post 9/11.

i'm sure it's also more interesting to find out which reports are from the author of such being on site. it's one thing to write a report based on 2nd hand reports, another to actually see and write about such. to this date, i have not heard of any reports based on any writer visiting gb, i.e. conducting interviews and seeing said conditions first hand, which indicates that any information in such is 2nd hand or worse. and does not such trouble you when it comes to validity of said report?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

dodger!

I'd end up paraphrasing them anyway - better to read it for yourself from the source.

Its just interesting that we condemn other countries as a result of their investigations, but condemn the organisation when it points the finger at the US for its approach to human rights post 9/11.

i'm sure it's also more interesting to find out which reports are from the author of such being on site. it's one thing to write a report based on 2nd hand reports, another to actually see and write about such. to this date, i have not heard of any reports based on any writer visiting gb, i.e. conducting interviews and seeing said conditions first hand, which indicates that any information in such is 2nd hand or worse. and does not such trouble you when it comes to validity of said report?

To a point. But again - noone complains when Amnesty International, for example releases, a report about political prisoners in Burma, or the torture of prisoners in Turkish gaols. They attempt to be as objective as they can, but there are obvious political reasons why such an organisation wouldn't be allowed to personally inspect facilities and interview current prisoners directly.

Clearly they do the best they can, with the information they can get interviewing former prisoners, relatives (they also share information with other agencies like the Red Cross who are sometimes admitted to these countries) - they probably do a bit of fact checking too, comparing statements from different interviewees, but obviously they are not infallible - neither I think, do they pretend to be.

Edited June 18, 2006 by Fishdude