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.

.