Who Is "Human Rights Watch" And What Is Their Political Agenda?

[onedomino]

The media headlines trumpeting the “Human Rights Watch” annual report put Abu Ghraib prison abuse (which is being prosecuted) in the same category with Darfur! Where are the HRW headlines condemning Iraqi beheadings? In this world of colossal atrocities, Abu Ghraib is the media reported headline of "Human Rights Watch" annual report? WTF? Where is the HRW homicide bombers headline? Where is the HRW Beslan headline?

What is "Human Rights Watch?" What are the names of the HRW members? (see below) How many members of the media originated the HRW annual report story? What are the unstated political agendas of these groups? http://www.hrw.org/

Rights Group Condemns Abu Ghraib, Darfur Conflict in Annual Report
David McAlary
Washington
13-January-2005 2201

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-01-13-voa73.cfm

A U.S. human rights organization is calling for prosecution of Sudanese officials responsible for the slaughter in Darfur and high-level U.S. officials who might be involved in the torture of prisoners in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. The group Human Rights Watch says both events have significantly weakened the worldwide system for protecting human rights.

In its annual survey of global human rights, Human Rights Watch leads with condemnations of ethnic cleansing in Darfur and the torture of prisoners by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.

The organization's executive director Kenneth Roth, says the group recognizes that the two issues are not of equal magnitude, but that each nevertheless undermines the vitality of the global defense of human rights. "So far, I'm sorry to say, the response to these two crises has not been encouraging," he said.

At a Washington news conference, Mr. Roth criticized the United Nations Security Council for a tepid reaction to the Darfur slaughter, saying it has not deployed a large enough protective force and or applied sanctions to Sudanese leaders in Khartoum. Mr. Roth holds out special criticism for Council member China, which he says is unwilling to offend Sudan in order to protect its interest in the country's oil supplies.

He accuses the international community of a charade of feigned concern. "Ten years after the Rwandan genocide, the continued ethnic cleansing in Darfur makes a mockery of our vows of never again," he said.

Human Rights Watch also calls for the establishment of a special U.S. prosecutor outside of Bush administration control to investigate the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal. Mr. Roth says the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib has been duplicated at other U.S. military detention centers at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in Afghanistan. In his view, it goes beyond the low level military personnel charged with abuse and reaches to top Bush administration officials. "This abuse of prisoners is the predictable product of an environment created by a series of policy decisions taken at the highest level of the Bush administration. It is a product of the Bush administration's continuing refusal to end and disown coercive interrogation," he said.

The Bush administration rejected the Human Rights Watch call, saying the present military judicial proceedings against the U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib are sufficient.

"I think the administration has been very clear, the president's been very clear, the documents released by the administration have been very clear: We do not condone torture or abuse of prisoners," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. "The actions of the administration have been quite clear in prosecuting this and investigating it and bringing it to light."

Human Rights Watch argues that that the United States does not do enough to promote human rights around the world, despite issuing an annual country-by-country survey of abuses. But Mr. Boucher counters by saying the United States is at the forefront of the defense of human rights around the world. He says it is integral to U.S. diplomacy and foreign aid programs, such as journalist training and support for civil government. "We have been very active in countries, many of whom we're working with closely against terrorism. But in some cases, like Uzbekistan, [we have withheld] funding, even though we have this cooperation on terrorism, because of our concerns about the human rights situation," he said.

The State Department spokesman points to progress in human rights in Afghanistan, where elections have been held, and in Ukraine, where he says the United States publicly decried elections it claimed were rigged.

Check out these headlines:
"Misleading by Example" - Salon.
"Rights Group Warns US Losing Credibility" - Chicago Tribune.
"Human Rights Group Critical Over Iraq Abuse" - RTE, Ireland.
"Right Group Seeks Independent Abuse Probe" - Los Angeles Times
"Rights: Report Singles Out US, Sudan for Strong Censure" AllAfrica.com
And the list goes on and on, at last count 241 world headlines similar to those mentioned above: http://news.google.com/news?ned=tus&hl=en&ncl=http://www.financegates.com/news/world_news/2005-01-14/abu_14012005.html

Some background on Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of HRW: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/Gerald%20M%20Steinberg%2059-722.pdf (page 62).
"Kenneth Roth, who was a prosecutor in New York before being chosen to head Human Rights Watch, has a long history of focusing on alleged Israeli human rights violations, which he attempts to dismiss by claiming to have been “drawn to the human rights cause in part by his father’s experience fleeing Nazi Germany in 1938.”
Roth, in turn, brought in Joe Stork, who served for many years as editor of the Middle East Report, which had (and still has) a very explicit political agenda strongly biased against Israeli (and U.S.) policies. Stork was a core member of the Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), described by B’nai B’rith as “a propaganda mill of the Far Left,”which openly called for Israel’s destruction. MERIP Reports carried laudatory interviews with terrorist leaders and other activists distributed literature (including PLO buttons, posters, and flags), and MERIP’s anti-Israeli assault reflected the standard Marxist anti-imperialist analysis. Stork wrote repeatedly on “the origins of the State of Israel and its war with the people of the Middle East.” After the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, MERIP issued a flyer stating: “Munich and similar actions cannot create or substitute for a mass revolutionary movement, but we should comprehend the achievement of the Munich action....It has provided an important boost in morale among Palestinians in the camps.”
At Human Rights Watch, Stork works with Gary Sick, an Islamophile who served in the National Security Council during the Carter administration and was responsible for much of America’s disastrous Iran policy in this period. Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of HRW’s Middle East and North Africa division, has a long history of political activity related to opposing Israel’s antiterror activities in Southern Lebanon and is on the board of the New York chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, an anti-Israeli organization. These examples and many more illustrate the close links between
the radical political agenda and the NGO community that developed over the past three decades."

-

 

[Annie]

He accuses the international community of a charade of feigned concern. "Ten years after the Rwandan genocide, the continued ethnic cleansing in Darfur makes a mockery of [B]our vows of never again[/B]," he said.

Well gee, how can anyone expect a vow that is referring to an event that much of the European intelligensia are now claiming didn't happen. Actually this morning is seems Le Pem was quoted as saying the Germans weren't 'that bad' in the human rights front in WWII. So I guess that's how to explain the response to Sudan?

 

[onedomino]

He accuses the international community of a charade of feigned concern. "Ten years after the Rwandan genocide, the continued ethnic cleansing in Darfur makes a mockery of [B]our vows of never again[/B]," he said.

Well gee, how can anyone expect a vow that is referring to an event that much of the European intelligensia are now claiming didn't happen. Actually this morning is seems Le Pem was quoted as saying the Germans weren't 'that bad' in the human rights front in WWII. So I guess that's how to explain the response to Sudan?

Le Pen WWII Remark Triggers Probe
BBC: 01.12.05

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4169963.stm

The French authorities have ordered a criminal investigation into alleged comments about Nazi wartime occupation by far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

He reportedly said the Nazi occupation of France during World War II was "not especially inhumane".

French Justice Minister Dominique Perben said he was appalled and had asked prosecutors to open a preliminary inquiry into the comments.

The 76-year-old National Front leader has a history of being controversial.

He apparently made his latest comments during an interview with the small extreme-right paper Rivarol.

"In France at least, the German occupation was not especially inhumane, even if there were a number of excesses - inevitable in a country of 550,000 sq km (220,000 sq miles)," he was quoted as saying.

"If the Germans had carried out mass executions across the country as the received wisdom would have it, then there wouldn't have been any need for concentration camps for political deportees."

He went on: "It's not just from the European Union and globalisation that we need to deliver our country, but also from the lies about its history."

'Detail of history'

Anti-racism laws in France make denying the Holocaust a crime, punishable by either fines or prison.

"He will have to explain himself before the justice system," said Dominique Perben.

"I'm struck by the way Mr Le Pen has insulted the victims, their families, former combatants, those who were deported and all those who suffered during this dark period of our history."

Mr Le Pen, who founded the National Front (FN) party in 1972, has been convicted of racism or anti-Semitism on a number of occasions before.

In 1987 he described the Nazi gas chambers as a "detail of history".

More than 70,000 French Jews were deported during the Nazi occupation from 1940 until 1944. Thousands of civilians also died at the hands of the German army.

What about an anonymous NGO (HRW) criticizing the US (Iraq prison abuse) in the headline of its annual report? Then the media picks up the smear and blasts it all over the solar system. Saying, for example, the the US and Sudan were singled out for special condemnation. The implicit comparison between the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and genocide in the Sudan is stunning in the venom of its anti-American political agenda. Where were the media headlines trumpeting the human rights abuses associated with the disgusting beheadings in Iraq, the homicide bombings in Israel, the foul murders in Beslan, Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, repression and lack of representative government in Syria, Iran, Egypt, Lybia, China, North Korea, etc?
-

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What & Who is the HRW? Here is one interesting take:
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/HRW.html

Some exerpts:

Human Rights Watch is founded on belief in the superiority of American values. It has close links to the US foreign policy elite, and to other interventionist and expansionist lobbies.

Human Rights Watch itself is part of that elite, which includes government departments, foundations, NGO's and academics. It is certainly not an association of 'concerned private citizens'. [my italics] HRW board members include present and past government employees, and overlapping directorates link it to the major foreign policy lobbies in the US. Cynically summarised, Human Rights Watch arose as a joint venture of George Soros and the State Department. Nevertheless, it represents some fundamental characteristics of US-American culture.

The Human Rights Watch 'Council' is primarily a fund-raising group. [my italics] However, its members no doubt expect some influence on HRW policy, for their $5 000 minimum donation. The Council describes itself as "...an international membership organization that seeks to increase awareness of human rights issues and support for Human Rights Watch."

At first Council membership was secret, but the list is now online: it partly overlaps with Board and Advisory Committee members. The interesting thing about the Council is that it shows how much HRW is not international. It is Anglo-American, to the point of caricature. The Council is sub-divided onto four 'regional committees'. You might expect a division by continents (the Americas, Africa, Europe and Asia-Pacific). But instead the 'regions' of the HRW global community are New York, Northern California, Southern California, and London. There is also a three-person 'Europe Committee At-Large' but it does not appear to organise any activities.

Although Human Rights Watch claims to act in the name of universal values, it is an organisation with a narrow social and geographical base. If HRW Council members were truly concerned about the welfare of Africans, Tibetans or eastern Europeans, then they would at least offer them an equal chance to influence the organisation. Instead, geographical location and the high cost restrict Council Membership to the US and British upper-middle-class.

DONORS OF $100,000 OR MORE
Dorothy and Lewis Cullman
The Aaron Diamond Foundation
Irene Diamond
The Ford Foundation
The Lillian Hellman and Dashiell Hammett Fund
Estate of Anne Johnson
The J. M. Kaplan Fund
The Fanny and Leo Koerner Charitable Trust
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
The John Merck Fund
The Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation
Novib, The Dutch Organization for Development Corporation,
The Overbrook Foundation
Oxfam
Donald Pels
The Ruben and Elisabeth Rausing Trust
The Rockefeller Foundation
Marion and Herbert Sandler, The Sandler Family Supporting Foundation
Susan and George Soros
Shelby White and Leon Levy

Note: I would highly suspect any organization backed by George Soros.

 

[Annie]

I agree about Soros, I think he is dangerous. Here is a very interesting series, of articles, albeit long, by Frontpage's Horowitz:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15392

By November 2003, the Shadow Party was ready to go public. As Cummings notes in the Wall Street Journal, Soros calculated that the best way to launch his network would be to issue a public statement, calling attention to the record-breaking contributions he had pledged to the Shadow Party. Such an announcement would “stimulate other giving” from Democrat donors still sitting on the fence, Soros thought.[20]

He chose The Washington Post to carry his message. Soros sat down with reporter Laura Blumenfeld and issued his now-famous call for regime change in the USA. “America under Bush is a danger to the world,” Soros declared in that November 11, 2003 interview. Toppling Bush, he said, “is the central focus of my life… a matter of life and death. And I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.” Would Soros spend his entire $7-billion fortune to defeat Bush, Blumenfeld asked? “If someone guaranteed it,” Soros replied.​

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=15408&p=1

By early 2004, the Shadow Party’s infrastructure had assumed a coherent shape, under Soros’ guidance. At its heart lay seven ostensibly “independent” non-profit groups which constitute the network’s administrative core. Let us call them the Seven Sisters. In chronological order, based upon their launch dates, they are:

1. MoveOn.org
Launched September 22, 1998

2. Center for American Progress (CAP)
Launched July 7, 2003

3. America Votes
Launched July 15, 2003

4. America Coming Together (ACT)
Launched July 17, 2003

5. The Media Fund
Launched November 5, 2003

6. Joint Victory Campaign 2004
Launched November 5, 2003

7. The Thunder Road Group LLC
Launched early 2004

With the exception of MoveOn.org – based in Berkeley, California – all Seven Sisters maintain headquarters in Washington DC. Testifying to the close links between these groups are their interlocking finances, Boards of Directors and corporate officers. In some cases, they even share office space.​

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15461

SEIU leader Andrew Stern agrees with Bai. Despite the $64 million he has poured into the Kerry campaign, Stern seems oddly apathetic toward the party Kerry represents. "There is an incredible opportunity to have the infrastructure for a third party," he told Bai. "Anyone who could mobilize these groups would have the Democratic Party infrastructure, and they wouldn't need the Democratic Party." It would be a radical dream come true.

What exactly would a third party – guided by George Soros and his radicals – envision and seek to accomplish that today’s Democrats cannot or will not do? The possibilities are endless. In the past, Bai explains, contributions to the Democratic Party simply vanished down a black hole, to be spent as Party leaders saw fit. The 527s allow "ideological donors" such as George and Jonathan Soros to apply their money to specific projects which enable them to shape Party goals and strategy – or even to by-pass the Party altogether.

New Democrat Network president Simon Rosenberg told Bai that independent 527s would be free to attack ideological foes with a forcefulness mainstream Democrats would never dare display. Insurgents such as Rosenberg are looking for a "more defiant kind of politics," which confronts head-on the "sharp ideological divide between them and the Rush Limbaugh right," notes Bai.

In the final analysis, the movers and shakers of the Shadow Party may or may not decide to break off and go it alone, forming a Progressive Party to the left of the Democrats as Henry Wallace and the Communist Party did in 1948 (Wallace lost and the Progressive Party disintegrated after a pitiful showing in the 1952 elections). The defiant statements to Matt Bai, on the other hand, might be merely shots across the bow – warnings to Democrat moderates to take the Shadow Party and its leftwing agenda seriously, or risk a devastating party split. Either way, the Shadow Party emerges a winner and is here to stay. Barring a change in the campaign funding laws, its power will continue to grow, whether as part of a coalition that includes the Democratic Party or not. Already, Shadow Party control of Democrat fundraising has given Soros and his minions influence over the party’s platform , strategy and candidate. Should John Kerry take the White House in this election, the Shadow Party will have a throne in the West Wing.​

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Why would Human Rights Watch be inventing torture stories about VietNam?

VN newspaper says human rights group distorting truth
(13-01-2005)

HA NOI — The army newspaper Quan Doi Nhan Dan in a commentary on Wednesday described the US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW)’s accusation that the Vietnamese Government had maltreated and tortured ethnic minority Christians as a "brazen fabrication of the situation in Viet Nam."

Under the title "They are inciting ethnic minority people in Tay Nguyen (the Central Highlands) to social disorder," the paper totally rejected HRW’s odd arguments in its 25-page report released on Monday about the situation in the Central Highlands.

The report said Christmas last year in Viet Nam’s Central Highlands was rather quiet as hundreds of local ethnic minority people were arrested and detained in police stations during the festive period.

Without shame, the executive director of the HRW’s Asia Division Brad Adams made up a story saying that the Vietnamese Government had also detained the wives and children of those who illegally crossed the border to Cambodia.

Last year, HRW also invented a number of stories about Viet Nam, including a "tragedy" in the Central Highlands. According to HRW, the "tragedy" involved 400 Vietnamese ethnic minority people, who took part in a demonstration and were tortured to death and their dead bodies thrown into a river.

The story, which was intended to shock the world, was in fact a complete fabrication. When the truth of it was discovered, the public was indignant about HRW’s story.

HRW’s operation has raised public concern as to whether or not this organisation is lending a helping hand to organisations hostile to Viet Nam.

One of them is Fulro, a reactionary organisation headed by Ksor Kok, who is nursing a dangerous ambition to establish an autonomous state in the Central Highlands.

After exposing HRW’s perilous political scheme disguised under the pretext of "protecting human rights," the paper affirmed that no citizens have been arrested for religious reasons and that only those who break the law and foment social unrest to destroy the peaceful life and the normal religious practices of local people, and those who attempt to threaten Viet Nam’s national security and territorial integrity will be punished. — VNS

Is HRW linked to the Transnational Radical Party (TRP) as Vietnam reactionary Ksor Kok is? Mighty suspicious. Vietnam brought this matter before the UN resulting in suspension of the TRP from its consultative relationship with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the UN.

http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/showarticle.php?num=01COM130105
http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/2004-05/29/Stories/17.htm
http://www.unpo.org/news_detail.php?arg=40&par=662

 

[onedomino]

-
The Diplomad's take on Kenneth Roth and HRW. The bold emphasis below is Diplomad's. I am a bit surprised that Diplomad offered no background information on HRW or Kenneth Roth. Thanks to Screaming Eagle for the information in the posts above.

Weird Watch
Sunday, January 16, 2005

http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/

If over the past 15 years or so one read and believed the reports of Human Rights Watch, one would be 110% convinced that the United States -- the world's oldest democracy; the country that brought down colonialism, Nazism, Fascism, and Communism; invented the UN; serves as a safehaven for tens-of millions of people of all races, nationalities, and creeds; and remains still the most sought after destination for millions of intending immigrants around the world -- is the greatest threat to peace, international cooperation, freedom and democracy ever to exist. It seems that for the guys and the gals at HRW, whenever something "negative" happens in the world, it's ultimate source is something the USA has done or failed to do. If Egypt adopts restrictive legislation it's because it imitates the US post-9/11 Patriot Act; if Britain does, it's because of the US-induced "climate of fear" after 9/11; if Cuba has a bad human rights record, the U.S. economic embargo is partially to blame, etc. No other country gets as much attention as the USA in HRW's reports: go look for yourselves.

Anything "positive" -- on the rare occasions HRW recognizes any such development -- is the result of brave activists, or lawyers, or the far-seeing HRW, itself. HRW's dominant theme, and it grows more strident by the year under Executive Director Kenneth Roth, is that essentially the US Constitution is a mandatory suicide pact, in fact, Western civilization can only live up to its ideals by committing suicide; and concern over terrorism is just an excuse to deprive poor Third Worlders of their rights, including the right of radical Islamists to emigrate to the West and seek to destroy it.

HRW's latest reports are no exception; it blasts the USA and even the EU for their human rights records, while devoting one page to Cuba -- and, as noted, partially blaming the US for whatever human rights flaws exist in Castroland. HRW's newest report on the state of human rights around the world contains two essays on Darfur -- comparing the situation there to Abu Gharib (!); in those we see the typically confused mish-mash of contradictory ideas that we expect from liberal foreign policy advocates,

"Immediate action is needed to save the people of Darfur. The U.N. Security Council or, failing action by that body, any responsible group of governments must deploy a large force capable of protecting the civilian population, prosecute the killers and their commanders, disband and disarm the Sudanese government's militia, and create secure conditions so displaced people can return home safely. Continued inaction risks undermining a fundamental human rights principle that the nations of the world will never let sovereignty stand in the way of their responsibility to protect people from mass atrocities."

This from the second essay,

"To its credit, the Security Council established an international commission of inquiry for Darfur, a possible prelude to prosecution. When the commission reports back at the end of January, the council will have to decide whether to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court.

The Security Council's many professions of concern will ring hollow if its answer to the desperate pleas from Darfur is, through delay or inaction, to let impunity reign. Darfur today stands as testament to a profound failure of will to prevent and redress the most heinous human rights crimes. Despite countless denunciations and endless professions of concern, little has been done to protect the people of Darfur. A failure of this magnitude challenges the fundamental human rights principle that the governments of the world will not turn their backs on people facing mass atrocities. For if the nations of the world cannot act here, when will they act?"

What can we make of this impassioned plea for action to save the people of Darfur? Could not much of what Mr. Roth states be applied to the US intervention in Iraq? Apparently not. In two prior essays Mr. Roth wrote on Iraq that,

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a murderous despot, but few consider that alone enough to warrant humanitarian intervention. Because of the death, destruction and disorder that are often inherent in war and its aftermath, a variety of conditions [must] be met to justify a military invasion on human rights grounds.

These include, foremost, that mass slaughter is ongoing or imminent, because only dire cases of large-scale carnage can justify war's deliberate taking of life.

We conclude that, despite the horrors of Saddam Hussein's rule, the invasion of Iraq cannot be justified as a humanitarian intervention. In our view, as a threshold matter, humanitarian intervention that occurs without the consent of the relevant government can be justified only in the face of ongoing or imminent genocide, or comparable mass slaughter or loss of life. Only large-scale murder, we believe, can justify the death, destruction, and disorder that so often are inherent in war and its aftermath.

There were times in the past when the killing was so intense that humanitarian intervention would have been justified, for example, during the 1988 Anfal genocide, in which the Iraqi government slaughtered some 100,000 Kurds. Indeed, Human Rights Watch, though still in its infancy and not yet working in the Middle East in 1988, did advocate a form of military intervention in 1991 after we had begun addressing Iraq. As Iraqi Kurds fleeing Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of the post-Gulf War uprising were stranded and dying in harsh winter weather on Turkey's mountainous border, we advocated the creation of a no-fly zone in northern Iraq so they could return home without facing renewed genocide. There were other moments of intense killing as well, such as the suppression of the uprisings in 1991. But on the eve of the latest Iraq war, no one contends that the Iraqi government was engaged in killing of anywhere near this magnitude, or had been for some time. "Better late than never" is not a justification for humanitarian intervention, which should be countenanced only to stop mass murder, not to punish its perpetrators, desirable as punishment is in such circumstances."

The Diplomad finds this line of logic not only weird, but also highly impractical for real policy makers to follow in the real world. We could only act if the killing were classified as either "imminent" or "ongoing mass slaughter" and "genocide." Who would determine that? Who defines "mass slaughter?" By the time the killing was "imminent" and certainly by the time it was "ongoing," in almost every case you can think of, military intervention would occur after the fact, and therefore according to HRW criteria, would be unjustified. What about mass slaughter that is not "genocide," a vague term in the real world? What would you do about mass ongoing killing within an ethnically identical group containing political factions who detest each other?

As you will see reading the reports, there are plenty of calls for faith in the UN, in a variety of international tribunals, and for the issuing of arrest warrants. In the real world, of course, none of those works. How would you execute an arrest warrant on Saddam? Look at the absurdness of the ongoing Milosevic trial, and tell us that's the model you want to follow.

HRW also shows the confusion that liberal advocates of multilateral military action have when it comes to the use of power by the USA. These advocates want the USA only to use its power in defense of the objectives that the advocates want. Any other use, is illegitimate.

They will be happy only when the Stars and Stripes come down from over the USS Abraham Lincoln to be replaced by the UN blue; only when Secretary-General Annan becomes Generalissimo Kofi, Commander of All Air, Sea and Land Forces. Or better yet, maybe Kenneth Roth wants the job?

-

 

[ScreamingEagle]

-
The Diplomad's take on Kenneth Roth and HRW. The bold emphasis below is Diplomad's. I am a bit surprised that Diplomad offered no background information on HRW or Kenneth Roth. Thanks to Screaming Eagle for the information in the posts above.

No problem onedomino, great topic & good article too. Also thanks to Kathianne for the excellent report on Soros - always follow the money. I guess it remains to be seen the ultimate effect of his Shadow Party on the Democrat party but I'm sure he uses organizations like HRW to also effect his lefist policies.

In my mind HRW is a dangerous mouthpiece of the anti-American elitist left which has the ultimate goal of world wide socialism/one world order with the elites running the show of course. Democracy must be destroyed for this to happen (like their attempt in Vietnam). HRW is one of the more powerful NGOs (non-governmental organizations) today because of its effective propaganda under the guise of being a "do-gooder" organization.

NGOs such as HRW are becoming more and more powerful by using their influence to create "international law". "Human Rights" is a very slick name for their organization. Who, in any country, is going to be despicable enough to oppose "Human Rights"? Using this specious front they are able to "get their foot in the legal door" to create legal international "human rights" laws and thus international law in general.

I believe the ultimate goal of HRW is to lay the groundwork for more and more international control. Of course international control is the ultimate goal of the Far Left, isn't it? And so to do this they must bend and break the independent power of the United States (their greatest foe) to make it bow under a web of international law. Thus they are seriously chipping away at the U.S. bit by bit with their negative attacks as your article discusses.

 

[Bonnie]

He accuses the international community of a charade of feigned concern. "Ten years after the Rwandan genocide, the continued ethnic cleansing in Darfur makes a mockery of [B]our vows of never again[/B]," he said.

Well gee, how can anyone expect a vow that is referring to an event that much of the European intelligensia are now claiming didn't happen. Actually this morning is seems Le Pem was quoted as saying the Germans weren't 'that bad' in the human rights front in WWII. So I guess that's how to explain the response to Sudan?

Well said Kathianne!!! It's all about selective reasoning that coincides with agenda. What's sad/funny is they don't even care their hypocracy shows like a glistening jewel, but I guess that doesn't matter as long as some in the "evil U.S." are the only ones that notice. :tng: