An interview with Amnesty International USA’s executive director, Dr. William Schulz. His basic message to “Anti-war” (well, anti-war when it fits their mold) groups: “Take on the terror threat, or risk irrelevance.”

Quote from the article:

In his new book, “Tainted Legacy: 9/11 and the Ruin of Human Rights,” Schulz argues that rising global terrorism requires the left “to rethink some of our most sacred assumptions.” A vigorous defense of human and civil liberties, while essential to spreading democracy worldwide, is not enough to stop terrorists from blowing up airplanes or shopping malls, he says. And that presents the left with a problem, because some of the tools needed to fight terror, such as stricter border controls or beefed up intelligence work — and, perhaps, war against states that support terrorists — chafe against traditional leftist values.

Further quotes from the interview (with emphasis added):

Human rights organizations are basically set up to put pressure on governments, not on more amorphous entities like terrorist groups. The traditional tools we use are generally not going to be effective with terrorists. I doubt Osama Bin Laden is going to be moved by 50,000 members of Amnesty International writing him a letter asking him to refrain from terrorist acts. In the face of a new kind of force in the world that is detrimental to human rights, the human rights community has been slow to adapt to that new reality, in both its understanding and its tactics. There’s a cultural lag at work here.

It’s a serious problem. It means that human rights advocates are seen solely as harping critics. We certainly need to be that; it’s a very important role. But if we fail to engage with the very real, hard decisions that governments have to make about protecting the safety of their citizens, then we’ll be dismissed as charlatans, or ideologues who are out of step with reality.

However, there continues to be the go-slow mindset:

The NATO-sanctioned intervention in Kosovo speaks to this. Granted, it also took place well after many human rights violations had been committed there, but it was a united action, which has since been supported by a relatively united attempt to rebuild Kosovo. So a greater degree of patience and respect for those international processes regarding Iraq might well have resulted in a far broader coalition, and there’s a good chance the consequences of rebuilding Iraq would’ve been far less drastic, for all involved, than they are now.

So the slaughter of additional people is OK as long as we have multi-lateral consensus before attacking? How many people have to die before it is OK to go “unilateral”. I use scare quotes here because there was a large (granted, not that much military support) group of nations willing to endorse our actions.

[Via Instapundit.com]

An interview with Amnesty International USA’s executive director, Dr. William Schulz. His basic message to “Anti-war” (well, anti-war when it fits their mold) groups: “Take on the terror threat, or risk irrelevance.”

Quote from the article:

In his new book, “Tainted Legacy: 9/11 and the Ruin of Human Rights,” Schulz argues that rising global terrorism requires the left “to rethink some of our most sacred assumptions.” A vigorous defense of human and civil liberties, while essential to spreading democracy worldwide, is not enough to stop terrorists from blowing up airplanes or shopping malls, he says. And that presents the left with a problem, because some of the tools needed to fight terror, such as stricter border controls or beefed up intelligence work — and, perhaps, war against states that support terrorists — chafe against traditional leftist values.

Further quotes from the interview (with emphasis added):

Human rights organizations are basically set up to put pressure on governments, not on more amorphous entities like terrorist groups. The traditional tools we use are generally not going to be effective with terrorists. I doubt Osama Bin Laden is going to be moved by 50,000 members of Amnesty International writing him a letter asking him to refrain from terrorist acts. In the face of a new kind of force in the world that is detrimental to human rights, the human rights community has been slow to adapt to that new reality, in both its understanding and its tactics. There’s a cultural lag at work here.

It’s a serious problem. It means that human rights advocates are seen solely as harping critics. We certainly need to be that; it’s a very important role. But if we fail to engage with the very real, hard decisions that governments have to make about protecting the safety of their citizens, then we’ll be dismissed as charlatans, or ideologues who are out of step with reality.

However, there continues to be the go-slow mindset:

The NATO-sanctioned intervention in Kosovo speaks to this. Granted, it also took place well after many human rights violations had been committed there, but it was a united action, which has since been supported by a relatively united attempt to rebuild Kosovo. So a greater degree of patience and respect for those international processes regarding Iraq might well have resulted in a far broader coalition, and there’s a good chance the consequences of rebuilding Iraq would’ve been far less drastic, for all involved, than they are now.

So the slaughter of additional people is OK as long as we have multi-lateral consensus before attacking? How many people have to die before it is OK to go “unilateral”. I use scare quotes here because there was a large (granted, not that much military support) group of nations willing to endorse our actions.

[Via Instapundit.com]