or to join or start a new Discussion

55 Comments
Article Rating     Not Rated Yet

Amnesty International

Infiltrated by the Russians? Pretty scandalous and Amnesty Ukraine have distanced themselves from the report.

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1555199584946864130?s=21&t=X2NJ_9W5mRaiuHr1Mirz-Q

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

TL;DR, RR

I agree with the first part of your proposition (Amnesty is not infallible), but can't the second (undue influence) without counterevidence I haven't seen.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

comment by Rosso out here drippin’ in finesse (U17054)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
TL;DR, RR

I agree with the first part of your proposition (Amnesty is not infallible), but can't the second (undue influence) without counterevidence I haven't seen.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Glad to see you both discussing this Navalny matter, I remember the concern when his earlier comments and actions started coming out recently and this makes an interesting read

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

comment by Slippin’ Robb (U22716)
posted 3 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by CurrentlyStuckIntheUK (U11181)
posted 44 seconds ago
Rosso spitting facts, Robb just going with feelings and emotions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact is that Amnesty International didn’t consult with Amnesty Ukraine before publishing the claims and now AU is kicking off massively. They feel they didn’t get the chance to corroborate the claims and this is a huge boost to the Russian propaganda machine as they can do what they’re doing and point to this report and claim they are the good guys.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And how is AU not compromised itself? Have they disputed anything said by AI? Why should AI push only what is acceptable to Western audience like you or what Ukrainians feel when they should be independent of both?

All seems very emotive in reaction. The only thing that needs to be seen is whether this is true or not. That's it.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

comment by The Duality of Van (Dijk) (U21747)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
Not accusing you of this Robb, but I think the reaction to the Amnesty International report is driven by the radicalised centre here in the UK - these are the people who post-Brexit desperately clung to 'people's vote' and you still see them now, the FBPE types, pointing out the damage it has caused and then swiftly arguing Brexit can and still should be reversed.

This no-compromise attitude to politics is now also applied to Ukraine where anything even remotely critical of Ukraine is seen as appeasement, or pro-Putin etc. We saw it last week with Corbyn's pretty asinine interview where he does what he always does - says he wants a peace process involving dialogue, but that was quickly spun as him saying we must end arms shipments.

We talk about polarised left and right but the same has happened in the centre too
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Got to agree with this.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

Rosso, have to acknowledge that your grasp of the detail much exceeds mine and perhaps I've been unfair. Where I have suspected AI being swayed by a political urge to emphasise their neutrality, perhaps in the light of your remarks the issue is instead a more technocratic inability to apply sensible context and political perspective, which is more forgivable. So, as you say, if scrupulously following the methodology leads them to delist as a political prisoner someone who is very obviously a political prisoner, and (for whatever his flaws) a benign character in comparison with his persecutor, then it makes sense to stop and ask whether the methodology is fit for purpose. (Which you point out they eventually did.)

Similarly, I would argue in this case, it's possible that criteria have been applied to the actions of the Ukrainian military which would be perfectly valid in most cases, but which don't really make sense in that of a war of existential defence against a force which is carrying out genocide in occupied territories and indiscriminately shelling heavily populated civilian areas throughout Ukraine. When it comes to a war of survival, and conscious of what has taken place in Bucha etc, I would guess that civilian population is much more likely to consent to the proximity of military infrastructure. Again, if this comes from technocratic tone deafness, I have more sympathy for the outcome than if it's for other reasons.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

I think that’s absolutely fair, RR.

It’s easy to focus in on the headline, and I wouldn’t argue too strenuously that AI has necessarily done itself any favours there; but anyone reading the full AI statement on the publication of the report - which I would encourage everybody to do, as well looking more widely at AI’s wider investigations into the conflict - will find that AI is at pains to place its findings in context, repeatedly calling out indiscriminate Russian bombardments, and explaining that any shortcomings in elements of the Ukrainian defensive strategy are no justification for any aspect of Russian military activities, including assaults on Ukrainian defences in residential or other civilian areas.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

Rosso, I've since read a couple of sober, detailed responses that critique the report criticising Ukrainian military positioning in urban areas. One focuses on a misapplication of the law / ethics governing such matters. The other criticises the report for drawing from emotive anecdotes rather than rigorous evidence gathering.

I don't want to go into the motivations etc. (and I totally accept that the 'good side' in any conflict should be held to account) but my anxiety that this particular work does not further the cause of protecting human rights remains.

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
Rosso, I've since read a couple of sober, detailed responses that critique the report criticising Ukrainian military positioning in urban areas. One focuses on a misapplication of the law / ethics governing such matters. The other criticises the report for drawing from emotive anecdotes rather than rigorous evidence gathering.

I don't want to go into the motivations etc. (and I totally accept that the 'good side' in any conflict should be held to account) but my anxiety that this particular work does not further the cause of protecting human rights remains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any links I can check out, RR? The latter would certainly interest me, particularly?

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

^ Question mark. Why?

Man, I need some sleep

posted 1 week, 1 day ago

What a nonsensical article.

Sign in if you want to comment
RATE THIS ARTICLE
Rate Breakdown
5
0 Votes
4
0 Votes
3
0 Votes
2
0 Votes
1
0 Votes

Average Rating: 0 from 0 votes

ARTICLE STATS
Day
Article RankingNot Ranked
Article ViewsNot Available
Average Time(mins)Not Available
Total Time(mins)Not Available
Month
Article Ranking417/500
Article Views477
Average Time(mins)1.43
Total Time(mins)620.28