AI may tell the truth. Sometimes they do. The problem is, how do we know? That’s the issue with credibility. AI has shot theirs–actually they shot it a long time ago–but this time they let their
— hang out and now there’s no question. They used to be subtler.

The MSM doesn’t lie all the time. Sort of like Mark Twain’s auctioneer: He never lied except when absolutely convenient.

I’m sorry to hear you’ve tired of this topic because I’ve really enjoyed reading your posts. Thanks for the insights. I guess as my final post on this topic, I’ll just say that I do respect the good things that American soldiers, marines, etc have done. I just think we can’t assmume it’s all good. AI still reports human rights abuses in Cuba, North Korea, Iran, The Congo, The West Bank and Gaza (both my the IDF and Islamic militants), and many other places. Those reports don’t seemed to be fueled by any anti-US, anti-Western sentiment. I still think we too easliy scapegoat the quality of the MSM when there is bad news.
Does the MSM lack quality reporting? Sure. Is all of their report filled with lies? I don’t think so. We could easily say the same thing about the DOD. I think liberals should admit when the DOD is telling the truth or doing a good job. I also think conservatives should suck it up and admit it when organizations like AI tell the truth, even nasty truths about the U.S. Anyway, thanks again for the posts. I’ll check out Cori Dauber as you suggested.

The purpose of our military is to kill people and break their stuff.
That,as I said, is the immediate objective. The result of that activity has historically been the spread of human rights, the ultimate goal.
Where we succeeded (WW II, Korea, Desert Storm, Civil War, etc.), the result was the spread of human rights. Now, I know that liberals prefer communist dictators who take power by killing most bodaciously and somehow morph it into grassroots support for the forces of liberation. Seen that.
Where we failed, Viet Nam, human rights suffered.

Since the military’s immediate objective is not human rights, but destruction–metered destruction unless we go nuke–their vested interest in human rights within their own organization or vis a vis the enemy or civilians is not loaded by the primary need to be seen “doing something”. They can take their time.

And, no I don’t have any sources. I generally ignore human rights organizations on this matter. Too many of them over the years have equated the massacre at Hue–to make an example–with omelets, or changed the subject to capital punishment in the US.

It’s generally a matter of following the news. I would recommend Cori Dauber of Rantingprofs for in-depth examinations of how the current unpleasantness is being reported. She is a poli sci prof with a background in rhetoric and debate. She looks at framing, sequence, loaded words, context, and so forth.

Got an example. In 1944, my father’s unit was moving down the street of a Dutch town, after midnight. As they passed a house, the front door was jerked open. A sergeant fired into the door. The dead guy turned out to be a householder who figured that jerking open a door in the middle of the night in the middle of a war to see who was making all the fuss was a good idea. I have no idea if he’d already bred. He had an adult niece in the house with him, so the possibility exists, but he sure as hell Darwined himself.
The young woman, upon hearing these were Americans and not Germans said, “Autre chemise, le meme coeur.” Understandable.

How do you think that would be reported today?

Theay also had a game rigged up for new prisoners. Somebody would seem to lose it, come charging at the guy, rifle in hand, to be tackled at the last moment, not before the weapon fired, by others. They used grenade blanks for safety, but the German wouldn’t know that. Legal? Think anybody in the WW II MSM would care?
As it happened, in his division, they took all the Jewish soldiers out of the line units after they found the bodies of those the Germans had captured, mutilated most horribly. And this was the Wehrmacht, not the Waffen SS. Do you think the MSM today would bother reporting such a thing? Or AI? Probably wouldn’t want to risk demonizing the enemy.

Anyway, the more I talk about this subject, the angrier I get.
Later.

I might like to argue on the assertion that the U.S. military’s ultimate objective is human rights, but that could take a long time. My dad, a career NCO in the army, always said that the army’s goal was to “close and destroy.” My older brother, definitely a long time conservative, tells me the military should be about destroying the enemy. He used this argument against sending U.S. troops to Bosnia and Kosovo (ironically, my younger brother wound up deploying to Bosnia three days after 9/11). But honestly, I do kind of think that’s what the military is about, and I say this with no intention of condescension. However, what I really want to know is, since you feel there is no one independent source on human rights, can you name a few that I could check out to synthesize for myself?

So, I keep watching to synthesize various reports.

Can you recommend someone you consider an independent source of information about human rights abuses? I’m thinking the list is quite short. I think Howard Zinn said, “You can’t be neutral on a moving train.” And I’m thinking you’re going to hate the fact that I quoted Zinn!

The point is not that they lie, or might. It’s that they can no longer be believed as an independent source.

I know they dislike the death penalty, and so anything they say about it is…what they say about it. I would only object if they try the usual lefty schtick about racist and so forth.

However, I really do object to selective outrage, not to mention Duranty-like whitewashing of the real baddies.

Is that close enough to half-way?

Sum. There’s no use in paying attention to AI any longer because, even if they said something true, how would you know?

Thanks for the lively discussion. I still take issue with some of your last assertions, but I just don’t have time to write that much. How about this: I’ll admit that AI is full of a bunch of liberals who can’t stand the Bush administration and that may have fueled their reporting, if you can admit that, despite who makes up AI, there might be some truth to their reporting? What do you say? I’ll meet you half way.

I think people focus on the US and forget that Amnesty International actually offended victims of the Gulag. Irresponsible use of “gulag” by Amnesty International lessen the gravity of Stalin’s crime and make light of the injustice suffered by the victims.

AI should retract its words and offer an apology, not to the US and because of the US, but to the victims of Stalin’s crimes.