Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Amnesty leadership aided Kerry

by Mark5019 / June 2, 2005 1:12 PM PDT

The top leadership of Amnesty International USA, which unleashed a blistering attack last week on the Bush administration's handling of war detainees, contributed the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.
Federal Election Commission records show that William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year. Mr. Schulz also has contributed $1,000 to the 2006 campaign of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts DemocratAlso, Joe W. "Chip" Pitts III, board chairman of Amnesty International USA, gave the maximum $2,000 allowed by federal law to John Kerry for President. Mr. Pitts is a lawyer and entrepreneur who advises the American Civil Liberties Union.


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050602-120456-1031r.htm

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Amnesty leadership aided Kerry
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Amnesty leadership aided Kerry
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
And your point is?
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 2, 2005 1:23 PM PDT

Who is he supposed to support, Mark, when he and his group considers Bush to be violating International Law? Or are you trying to say that only Bush supporters can criticize him?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
just showing how kerry
by Mark5019 / June 2, 2005 3:32 PM PDT
In reply to: And your point is?

got support from an anti american outfit you know the freedom kerry never fought for

Collapse -
Anti American
by Tibbs / June 2, 2005 11:48 PM PDT
In reply to: just showing how kerry

Mark, is there any international Human Rights Organization that is NOT anti American?

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Yes.
by Kiddpeat / June 3, 2005 12:10 AM PDT
In reply to: Anti American
Collapse -
yes the us red cross is one
by Mark5019 / June 3, 2005 1:25 AM PDT
In reply to: Anti American

but you know that allready

Collapse -
I guess the international Red Cross
by JP Bill / June 3, 2005 4:30 AM PDT

doesn't qualify

Red Cross report describes systematic U.S. abuse in Iraq

The international Red Cross gave U.S. military officials at least a half-dozen warnings last year that Iraqi prisoners were being abused by American personnel, according to a confidential report the aid organization sent to top U.S. officials in February.

The complaints of mistreatment, filed from April through November 2003, ranged from the use of lethal force in quelling prison riots to beatings and the isolation of naked captives in tiny, dark cells for 23 hours a day. In several cases, the Red Cross filed written concerns to top level U.S. commanders.


Checking on prisons in countries outside of the US is NOT the responsiblity of the US Red Cross so they would have no reason to question treatment of people outside of the US.

So the statement that you would believe the US Red Cross about prisoner treatment is something that won't happen.

Collapse -
your right jp it dosnt when you relize they are the same
by Mark5019 / June 3, 2005 6:10 AM PDT

as the usless un, AI you might just wake up to the fact as they have allways beed against the usa.

Collapse -
I think you would find plenty of military
by TONI H / June 3, 2005 6:20 AM PDT

personnel of the USA over the past many years, Mark, who would disagree with that statement. There are many who wouldn't be here if it weren't for the Red Cross and the work they've done for them. I actually have more respect for the credibility of the Red Cross than the AI.....

TONI

Collapse -
i have no respect for the internatinal redcross
by Mark5019 / June 3, 2005 1:46 PM PDT

the usa ones diferent.
i read some where about the aid to the flood victems is still being held up by them the internatinal red cross

Collapse -
The real reason?
by Tibbs / June 3, 2005 1:56 PM PDT

Is that really the reason why you do not have respect for the international red cross? Or is it the fact that they have been critical of the USA sometimes?

Collapse -
I have more respect for the International than the US...

after the US Red Cross tried to pull a fast one with the donations they got for 9/11... And then there's the US Red Cross's refusal to accept blood from those with hemochromatosis, which would substantially alleviate the chronic blood shortage problem (the Red Cross argues that such blood isn't the result of a "truly voluntary donation" because it's required for therapy. I'm sure that makes a lot of sense to those who must put off elective surgeieres when the blood supply drops too far!) OTOH, I have a major problem with the IRC's refusal to allow a Red Mogen David designation for Israel, while allowing the Red Crescent for all the Muslim countries.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
well dave you go ahead and beleave in them
by Mark5019 / June 6, 2005 4:26 AM PDT

i know better there just like AI such an impartial outfit.

Collapse -
Re: American Red Cross
by Paul C / June 3, 2005 10:24 AM PDT

The ARC is NOT a signatory to the agreement establishing the International Red Cross/Red Crescent, and has never been.

Collapse -
Huh? Are you saying they're not affiliated, Paul?
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 6, 2005 3:46 AM PDT
In reply to: Re: American Red Cross
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Very good JP!
by Tibbs / June 3, 2005 12:03 PM PDT
Collapse -
It's important to realize...
by EdH / June 2, 2005 7:03 PM PDT
In reply to: And your point is?

that they are a partisan organization and thus their objectivity is supect. Which has been proven by their report of last week.

They position themselves as being fair and impsartial, and many believe they are. Clearly they are not.

Collapse -
So 'critical of US' = 'not fair and impartial,' Ed?
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 6, 2005 3:49 AM PDT

Now there's a fair and impartial definition! If you asked the people of the world whether they had more respect for the IRC or the US government right now, I dare say you know who would win...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Other than England,
by TONI H / June 6, 2005 4:03 AM PDT

Australia, Canada, and a few other countries I have respect for, which country would you care to move to, Dave since you have so little respect for the one you happen to call home? Which country do you respect more at this time? I'd help you pack if you would post just ONE time with something good to say about your own country for a change.

TONI

Collapse -
The way things are going, Toni,
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 6, 2005 1:29 PM PDT
In reply to: Other than England,

I may eventually have to -- but I pray not. Australia or Canada would both be possibilities... As for criticizing the US, like Ed Dionne I am disappointed that once again we are consistently failing to practice what we preach and live up to our own ideals: >> It's outrageous that Bush tried to dismiss all questions about practices in Guantanamo as the work of "people who hate America." On the contrary, it's people who love America and the liberties it espouses who are most vehement in insisting that we live up to our creed. <<
(Washington Post login: semods4@yahoo.com; pw = speakeasy)

You expect the Russians and Chinese (for instance) to deny human rights and subvert democratic results they don't agree with; we shouldn't accept such behavior from the cradle of modern democracy.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
and like there gonna say diferent
by Mark5019 / June 6, 2005 4:27 AM PDT

lol dk you were the one who said never be a vote in iraq.

Collapse -
How do you find that in my post?
by EdH / June 6, 2005 4:36 AM PDT

Not a thing like what I said. Why misrepresent what I said?

Which was.

It's important to realize...

that they are a partisan organization and thus their objectivity is supect. Which has been proven by their report of last week.

They position themselves as being fair and impsartial, and many believe they are. Clearly they are not.


Why not respond to what I actually said instead of making something up?

Collapse -
'Clearly they are not'
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 6, 2005 1:17 PM PDT

is hardly objective, Ed. The "evidence" you provide is "their report of last week," which was critical of the US. What is the objective evidece and logic leading to "clearly they are not?" I was adding 2 and 2 and (to me) getting 4, but if you have other objective evidence to support your contention, I'd love to hear it.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) OK, how long since they said anything good about the US
by Roger NC / June 6, 2005 1:49 PM PDT
In reply to: 'Clearly they are not'
Collapse -
Why should they, Roger?

We treat our own people only marginally better -- we have one of the highest percentages of incarcerated citizens in the world, and are one of the few countries that still have a death penalty. We insist on basing laws on mythology instead of facts, as demonstrated once again by yesterday's SCOTUS ruling on medical marijuana, and the claims by the "Drug Czar" that this shows MJ has no medical use -- despite decades of expret medical testimony to the the contrary. OTOH, there are LOTS of countries that have never been criticized by AI (mostly in northern Europe). But until we started systematically denying human rights under Bush, the balance of their reports on us were favorable. Now they aren't -- and properly so. The American Bar Association and ACLU are equally critical, but of course, they're also "liberal." Those darn liberals, always insisting on the due process guaranteed by our Constitution!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Yes, it's hell here in the US
by EdH / June 6, 2005 10:39 PM PDT

I suppose that's why so many are desperate to get in.

Collapse -
Maybe we have the largest
by TONI H / June 6, 2005 10:41 PM PDT

number of incarcerated criminals, but maybe that's because many countries chop off hands or outright kill after short and fast trials instead of locking them up. It appears to me that most of the incarcerated criminals in other countries are foreigners and not citizens of those countries.

TONI

Collapse -
you would think that way
by Mark5019 / June 6, 2005 1:53 PM PDT
In reply to: 'Clearly they are not'

as you have shown you dont support this country why stay here if you despise it so much and find fault with it why stay.

Collapse -
You know what I'm talking about...
by EdH / June 6, 2005 9:41 PM PDT
In reply to: 'Clearly they are not'

Saying the US is running gulags, calling for the arrest of American officials, etc. Okay, maybe not in the report itself, but in the press conference announcing the report and the many statements following it by AI biggies, Irene Khan, William Shulz, et al. CLEARLY AI is not impartial. No amount of spinning changes that, Dave.

I say again,they are a partisan organization and thus their objectivity is suspect.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/05/opinion/main699754.shtml

Collapse -
i don't know what Marks point is
by jonah jones / June 2, 2005 7:29 PM PDT
In reply to: And your point is?

but mine would be "amnesty is 'supposed' to be apolitical"


.

Collapse -
But it's not the organization, it's a member, Jonah --
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / June 2, 2005 10:45 PM PDT

albeit an important one. Don't you think one should "put his money where his mouth is" in political matters?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

FALL TV PREMIERES

Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!