1 Well shit! Glad someone has brought up Africa finally...if we're all about taking out dictators who kill or torture their citizens, why Iraq and not most of Africa? If it's about nukes, why the hell is N. Korea allowed to fuck around with uranium? Maybe I'm missing something, and if I am, correct me.

2 Hey, it was only a 308 page report covering 148 countries. What do you expect journalists acting on deadline to do? Read the whole damn thing?

Who else would have the time to read through the whole report, and notice that they gave more space to the US than to Sudan, which was home to the most recent genocide - more than 210,000 killed as of earlier this year, and a butchers' bill that continues to rise daily.

Or, that the coverage of Iraq and Saudi Arabia were not so veiled attacks on the US war on terror, instead of covering the religious persecution in Saudi Arabia or the continuing violence by terrorists against civilian populations all while completely disregarding the Laws of War or the Geneva Convention.

How to spot a gulag in a few easy steps.

3 Lawhawk, I haven't read the whole things yet, have you? The thing that is of more importance to me is: Are these accusations true? Does Amnesty International lie?

4 osama,

The OBVIOUS reason we haven't attacked African countries or North Korea yet is because we didn't have 19 black or kimchi eatin'dudes hijack jetliners and use them as human missiles... but I guess the obvious answer is just that.

5 Africa is a sacred cow, and America's blacks and liberals would cry foul if we did anything other than send money to dictators. Besides, they're just "brown people", and obviously neither capable of appreciating liberty nor deserving of it. At least that seems to be the leftard's view on thing, kind of like "democracy won't work in Islamic countries". I think freedom is good for everyone, whether they know it or not, whihc is just more reason to hate liberals.

6 It always amazes me the kind hearted people whom care for places like Africa and North Korea in the wake of an "Illegal War"!

Osama, what have you done to better the conditions in either place? have you donated money, or wrote your representative about genocide in Sudan? or does your caring only come into play in Internet boards, when criticizing the "Illegal War"?

Most of the comments I read of the same type is "why did you not topple Dictator X in Country X, is it because they don't have Oil?" as if the person ever had a strong view about helping Country X before?

Be sincere.

7 Editor, I'm sorry....are you saying the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq? Give me a break!

Minimus Phallus, I think democracy could work anywhere and that freedom is good for everyone. Sounds like you just hate anyone that doesn't share your exact view...which is probably a large part of our population. Do you hate America?

8 Dave...actually, I do donate money to feeding people in Africa. Don't get me wrong...I think it's great Saddam is no longer in power, but I don't feel that has solved our terrorism problem. I actually think it could get much worse the way things are going. I am very sincere when I say I wish our resources were better used to find Osama, stop N. Korea, and help countries that have genocide or oppression problems.

9 No, Amnesty International doesn't 'lie' but neither is it objective 'truth'. If someone gets beat is it a 'human rights abuse'? The answer, of course, is 'maybe'. It all depends on a lot of other factors. Most of what AI does is interpretive work. Because they are a bunch of left-wing idiots, though, their interpretation of world events focuses on who they see as the 'bad gusy'--the US and Israel.

10 Before this discussion takes a downward spiral replete with name calling and accusations, we need to read the report. That's what I intend to do. So I won't be commenting on it until then. I will admit that I already have an opinion of AI (which I think really stands for "artificial intelligence") but I will try to set that aside for now.

Osama, I'm glad the issue of Africa has become more and more a topic of converstaion too, but you have to consider what happened last time we jumped into Sudan - what ensued was a complete effing nightmare. Sudan, and many parts of Africa, are so completely lawless it makes some areas of LA look like kindergarten. And we are not the only country in the world capable of exerting force there. So don't be too harsh on the US in that respect. I'm thinking it's about time a few others quit the hand-wringing and stepped up to the plate on these issues. We'll back them up, but we can't do it all.

The flak we take for the fact that we toppled Saddam's regime should give you an idea of what would happen if we went into Darfur too. In my opinion, either case would be justified, but we would still be crucified for all the same things we're being vilified for now. The very first argument that would come up would be that "they were not a threat to our security", "sovereignty of a nation" and a myriad of other claims and it would be declared an illegal war by many. More innocent people would die and we would still be the bad guys. I have no doubt of this.

11 Well, my jury's out on this one. I haven't read the whole thing so I can't really comment on it...I've only seen the fallout.

12 This sums up my view so far though: http://www.big-boys.com/articles/scare.html

13 Those are two important issues, rusty, good on ya.

14 So far it looks to me like we're being severely beaten with the you-should-know-better stick while others are getting a free pass, probably because they are presumed not to know better or it's "expected" of them (which we all know is horseshit). They've gone a little tougher on the UN than I expected too, I'm glad to see. Although I'll have to admit that they're more optimistic that the UN can be reformed than I am.

Austin Bay beats them up pretty good for their "gulag" statement. As well he should.

15 Amnesty Int'l is making objectively false statements about US practices and the applicable law. The most obvious example of which is that the detainees in Guantanamo Bay are being "denied" trials. First of all, under international law they are not supposed to be treated as criminals - this is actually intended as a protection of them. Enemy combatants can and should be held until hostilities cease.

16 I know, they keep bringing up the Geneva Conventions implying that combatants not in uniform are protected. I'm with you, SPQR, hold 'em until the battle's over and then tell them to go back to their farms if they're deemed no longer a threat.

An aside: What does SPQR stand for?