Amnesty International Report on Colombia: All parties violate human rights

Piatt says on May 28, 2008, 11:26:

does anybody take that organization seriously? just curious.... because I don't. (they remind me to much of like an extreme PETA group)

gordo

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 28, 2008, 11:35:

I would have to say that the majority of people I talk to on regular basis would take this organization and its reports very seriously.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on May 28, 2008, 11:37:

I like the work of amnesty international...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 28, 2008, 11:38:

It's impossible for me to take them seriously when the first sentence of the report contains the phrase "Army-backed paramilitaries."

I would think an organization with Amnesty's resources could at least bother to look up the facts on combat, arrests and killings of paramilities BY the Colombian army and other forces.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 28, 2008, 11:56:

I take them seriously as far as the incidents they report and the issues they point out, not necessarily their language, which has a few questionable bits and certain ramifications, like what Mr. Hollywood pointed out (almost every time, or at least once in almost every AI article I've read, "army-backed paramilitaries" is used regardless of whether the paracos actually had or didn't have army backing in any particular situation, which the reader can't always immediately confirm, or if they, for example, had backing from some other security or state outfit).

There are also some statistical concerns with their work that, I believe, were pointed out in a CERAC report posted a relatively long time ago here.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on May 28, 2008, 12:06:

I take their reports seriously, ignoring some highly unpleasant "propaganda" language artifacts.
I could not stand a lot of its members talking, at least back in Italy.
That said, my brother is an AI's activist and an absolutely intelligent and objective person, like few others there.

The CERAC document showed that their reports are correct for the most part, although pointed out some "bugs" that should not be there, and, IMHO, can be explained only with a leftist partial view and attitude of the organization itself, that should not be allowed to transpire into their reports.

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Colombiareports.com says on May 28, 2008, 12:13:

at Mr. Hollywood,

There are numerous examples of the army (or army officials) helping the paramilitary. I wouldn't take them less serious for actually saying that. Read the report.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on May 28, 2008, 13:06:

To quote the CERAC document I mentioned above:

"AI frequently blames violent events on "the army-backed paramilitaries" or "...by the security forces or the paramilitaries operating with their support or acquiesce", not specifying the direct perpetrator of political killings.

Although there are a growing number of well-documented cases of government-paramilitary collusion over the years, it is very unlikely that all casualties directly caused by government forces or by paramilitaries are really the joint responsibility of the two.

Figure 3 suggests that the paramilitaries are directly behind many more killings of civilians than are the government forces; hence the government record suffers greatly in this association. AI's quantitative information does not capture massive killings of civilians by paramilitaries (Figure 3) as measured by CERAC and AI's largest numbers for these are in 2003 and 2004, precisely when paramilitary killings dropped sharply according to CERAC. AI does not really capture the main dynamics of the conflict over the last decade."

http://www.cerac.org.co/pdf/CERAC_WP_4.pdf

Joint responsibility is assumed, by using such expressions, regardless of the specifics in each case or even in general, and that can be problematic when looking at actual trends and establishing who must answer for a given murder or massacre.

Evidently, from a general perspective, the Colombian state and society, including the army and the government, have been linked to the paramilitaries. That responsibility is real regardless of how AI may choose to express it, but I do not believe it's necessary or even convenient to use the term so freely in any situation.

The problem is not linking the army to the paramilitaries. I do want the army to be condemned for what it deserves to be condemned, which is a lot. That can be done, even more aggressively, without using that term. But used that way, those grave cases where the army has actively collaborated with the paramilitaries are directly confused with those where the paramilitaries, far from impossible at this point in the conflict considering how large and financially powerful the paramilitaries became, actually acted on their own. Not to mention cases in which the military was solely responsible, for that matter.

It all becomes one big mess and responsibilities are left vague or implicit, whether it's on the side of the innocent or the guilty.

If it's a joint paramilitary-military crime, one way or another, I do expect to read "army-backed paramilitaries stormed into the town and tortured people in horrible ways...the military brigade apparently provided them with logistical support because of this and that". But if that does not appear to be the case, then what...is that backing still automatically assumed? Most likely, if the term is still employed by AI in those cases, regardless of what may have actually happened, the reader will assume that the army was backing the paramilitaries. Is that helpful for prosecuting specific officials for their offenses or connections? I don't see how.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 28, 2008, 14:15:

I'm just echoing what Juancegomez said: AI needs to be precise in its language, and "Army-backed paramilitaries" as a blanket term for the paras is anything but. The flaws are obvious: First it suggests that the Colombian Army, as a whole, supports the paramilitaries. That's simply not true. Second, it creates the fallacy that paramilitary = army, also not true. Finally, it overlooks the fact that there ARE certainly cases of personal corruption and collusion between the paramilitaries and individuals in the Colombian military, just as there have been examples of corruption and collusion between members of the military and the FARC. IMO, that is the problem that must be solved and where resources should be spent.

If AI has any interest in being taken seriously by the Colombian government, in order to actually influence change, they need to set down the tar and feathers.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on May 28, 2008, 15:50:

How about another view?

"Yesterday Amnesty International issued its annual report. Governments, it said, should hang their heads in shame in this, the 60th anniversary of the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights. So they should, the democracies among them, for not doing more to insist on respect for its core principles."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rosemary_righter/a...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on May 28, 2008, 18:47:

I like their Core Intention, that said, no large organization is perfect but they certainly fill a role. I'm sure many Government Heads in which Amnesty has exposed their Country's Secrets don't hold them in High regard but they do the Job for the most part. And I support them. They have been instrumental in exposing wrongdoings in Colombia and hopefully with Worldwide Publicity on Colombia, Uribe will move to do more(bring the deaths of the many trade unionists to justice) and get off their list. And receive US FTA Approval by the US Congress.

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

sanandressi says on May 29, 2008, 14:39:

Amnesty International is based in London if I am correct (Or is it Human Rights Watch which I put in the same league as AI?) and has a very leftist liberal agenda. I have heard them rip Colombia's government and the para-militaries for years while giving the FARC and ELN a pass. Here is how they do this. The will write a 5 page written condemnation of the government and the AUC and then will say in one or two sentences that the FARC and ELN do the same things.

It is not what they say but how they say it! Instead of equally criticizing all involved, they like to attack Democratically elected governments.

It is just like the ACLU...they will take a lefty liberal case they like and deny the rights of free speech on the right by not taking up the cause. It is what it is!

NO! I do not care for Amnesty International. Sorry!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 29, 2008, 21:36:

I dunno, but doesn't the fact that the Colombian government and army are the LEGITIMATE representatives of the excecutive power in Colombia and would thus be accountable for any violations in human rights in a sense that CLANDESTINE organizations would NOT? I believe the Colombian government has signed all the international treaties that hold it accountable for these violations and the work of AI and HRW is to see to that it fullfills its commitments?

What's leftist or liberal or subversive with that??????????

Or is the problem here that these organizations are independent and do not take their orders from the same bosses as the Government?

(Nobody has EVER claimed that the guerrilla does not violate human rights in Colombia. The main objective of AI or HRW is however, NOT to report the guerrilla's behaviour, but of the Government and LEGITIMATE political institutions.

Without AI and HRW we'd only know ONE side to the story, the Government side that has far too often covered up, sanctioned and even supported AUC atrocities against civil population.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on May 30, 2008, 10:19:

I've gotta do something about this situation.
Rubi is agreeing with me in almost every post .....

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on May 30, 2008, 11:28:

I have zero problem with Amnesty International criticizing governments, including the Colombian one, for their actual violations of human rights. And if AI wants to explicitly say that they don't monitor HR violations on the part of non-government actors like the FARC, ELN and AUC that would be fine, too. But where they fall down on the job is when they attribute the actions of a non-governmental group (the AUC) to the government without providing substantiation or context.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jun 1, 2008, 10:41:

As previously expressed, I certainly admire their intentions and recognize the need for their existence as watchdogs, as well as much of their actual work, but that doesn't mean that all AI or HRW reports are free from specific or general criticism.

Without resorting to the sort of slander Uribe sometimes uses against NGOs, there are valid questions one can ask or, simply, issues where we may not agree.

There is no doubt that the state should be held accountable for uncountable offenses or complicities, perhaps in even stricter ways, but that doesn't mean the points previously raised shouldn't be looked into or at least debated.

It's harder, of course, to make the guerrillas answer for their crimes since their obligations are usually less formal, so to a certain extent it's logical that their abuses receive less coverage from most human rights NGOs, but I think it's far from unnecessary.

If anything, when I see HRW and AI criticizing the guerrillas, which they clearly do, I feel those criticisms should be publicized a lot more than they usually are, both on their side and that of the Colombian and international press.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

gatogris says on Jun 1, 2008, 11:28:

HRW and AI are key players in a broader (and relatively recent) movement towards the recognition of the importance of human rights worldwide. No one who isn't either a raving sadist, a complascent John Birch society contrarian, or not the sharpest tool in the shed would like to imagine the world without organizations such as these. Even a dungeon like Uzbekistan formally acknowledges the moral authority of AI.

That said, Juance is absolutely right in that claims of state-paramilitary collusion should be carefully documented and substianted, as was the case with HRW's excellent 2001 report on the "6th Division (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/colombia/)." If these claims are not supported by evidence (and remember, evidence under human rights law includes testimony of victims, so the burden of proof is a little softer) than the ethical standing of these groups can be blunted and their political efficacy decreased.

The real question is when will legal instruments such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both of which have been ratified by 85-90% of nations worldwide, be granted legal teeth? Will we ultimately need some kind of global cops to enforce these measures, rather than just naming-and-shaming groups like AI and HRW?

0 funny, 0 helpful.