Amnesty International: ‘War on Terror’ Has Made World Worse
LONDON (Reuters) - Washington’s “war on terror” has made the world more dangerous by curbing human rights, undermining international law and shielding governments from scrutiny, Amnesty International said on Wednesday. Releasing its annual report into global human rights abuses in 2002, the London-based watchdog made one of its fiercest attacks yet on the policies pursued by the United States and Britain in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

And oh, how we should be respecting the human rights of terrorists. I’m sure Amnesty International would prefer to go back an era of appeasement and do-nothingness. That should make the world safer. Morons.

“There is a very real risk that Iraq will go the way of Afghanistan if no genuine effort is made to heed the call of the Iraqi people for law and order and full respect of human rights,” Khan said.

Let’s pray this is true. Afterall, Afghanistan women are no longer brutalized, tortured and maimed for simply showing their faces. The women are allowed to school and work as normal humans. It would be a real shame if Iraqi women enjoyed the same human rights.

It said the intense media focus on Afghanistan and Iraq in 2002 meant human rights abuses in Ivory Coast, Colombia, Burundi, Chechnya and Nepal had gone largely unnoticed.

Exactly how in the hell is that the fault of Washington? We apologize if defending our world from mass terrorism is taking some media focus off your food drops, but get real….trying to tie the two together is the epitome of pathetic.

“The United States continues to pick and choose which bits of its obligations under international law it will use, and when it will use them,” she said, highlighting the detention without charge or trial of hundreds of prisoners in Afghanistan and in a U.S. military camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. “By putting these detainees into a legal black hole, the U.S. administration appeared to continue to support a world where arbitrary unchallengeable detention becomes acceptable.”

Where would Amnesty International propose to put TERRORISTS? And while we’re discussing picking and choosing international law, let’s discuss the lack of enforcement of U.N. resolutions by the international community. Yes, it took a real country with real resolve and a desire to see a peaceful world, to dismantle a tyrant’s regime and relieve him of his weapons. Let me ask you Amnesty International, is the middle east more stable with Saddam Hussein out of power, or with him invading neighboring countries? You people are ridiculous.

Khan said it was vital that the world “resist the manipulation of fear and challenge the narrow focus of the security agenda.” “The definition of security must be broadened to encompass the security of people, as well as states,” she said.

What a moron. Guess what Ghengis Khan, the war on terror *IS* allowing the world to “resist the manipulation of fear” and “encompass the security of people, as well as states”. The free men and women in Afghanistan are PEOPLE, not states. The Iraqis who are able to gather in the streets without fear of torture or imprisonment are PEOPLE, not states.

Look, Amnesty International, we all know you’re against the death penalty and we understand your hatred for George W. Bush since he enforces the death penalty against society’s worst villians, but get your nose out of politics. Go dance in the streets for human rights and stop butting into the work of real men. Or perhaps we’ll go the way of Amnesty International until you see things clearly…..perhaps while your dancing in the smoldering rubble of your headquarters just after terrorists have lodged an aircraft into the elevator shaft. Of course, terrorists wouldn’t go after you…..you’re their friends.

.

How to speak Liberal:

How to oppose a tax cut - Since most average families would like to see their taxes go down, and a Republican is proposing such, make sure to focus on the wealthy, and only look at the amount of the cut, but ignore altogether their collective tax BURDEN. Evaluating the whole story won’t help here, just recite something simple like, “it’s a tax cut for the rich and big business”.

How to oppose a justified war - Since 70% of the country backs the war, focus on the innocent lives sure to be lost (ignore that they’re 1. going to die at the hands of the regime anyway (and probably in a more gruesome manner) and 2. going to die most likely at the hands of the regime in the war, rather than our smart warheads). Also, make sure to say something about how you can support the troops and not the President… this will help you later in your defense of your lack of patriotism. If all else fails, enumerate each and every reason proferred by the administration for the war: WMDs, Regime change, al-Qaeda link, September 11th, freedom of the Iraqi people….. and when convenient lash out at any failings or even perceived failings in each of these. Be cautious, however, when dealing with a principled administration, if a cause is advanced, it’s sure to be accurate, so push hard while the proof is questionable or not readily available and go into hiding when you’re proven wrong….trust me, people will forget what you blabbered before the war.

How to blame Republicans for everything - just use the word “big” in front of any perceived institutional or social opposition. Some examples: big business, big oil, big tobacco, big corporations With a word like “big” in front of them, who on earth could find it in their heart to support one of these horrible institutions.

How to gain support for continuing failing government-run social programs: If anyone questions an obviously failing program, question their compassion for the down-trodden, the disabled, the poor or the minority. This will insure that the opposition will back down, as in today’s world it’s more egregious to be labeled a bigot, prejudiced or a “hater” than to be called immoral, unethical or atheist.

How to win a presidency: Run on the concept of wealth for everyone, even those who choose not to work or help by promising to take from the greedy, evil rich (ok, middle class is fair game too) and give to the poor; threaten senior citizens with their medicare, prescription drugs and social security; minimize the perceived need for strong military (afterall, that whole “provide for the common defense” clause in the constitution is just misinterpreted by evil strict constructionists); lie about your credits, affairs and opponents, it does wonders; and if you find yourself on election day still behind, isolate a small liberal jurisdiction or two, send in the lawyers, Jesse Jackson and David Boise and try to steal the election (be careful, though, trashing military votes in place of accepting convicted felon votes can backfire if caught - but don’t worry, if the local counters can’t steal it for you, your lawyers can take it to the supreme court, which has more conservatives and will provide you with four years of undending whining about a “selected, not elected” president). *caveat - make sure your party at least wins in the following midterm elections if you want this argument to hold any weight

How to take down America: Vote a straight democratic ticket……hell, it’s easier than thinking.