It’s time for another hard hitting report by Amnesty International, and this time the Iraqi “insurgents” have found themselves in their, er, verbal crosshairs. They’re still recovering from the whole “Guantanamo = Gulag” controversy, so this is the perfect time to wise up and release a real report on real human rights abuses. It’s the perfect way to both get their credibility back and do the work they were started to do. The press release starts off really well too; with a real bang, if you’ll excuse the pun.

Armed groups opposed to the US-led multinational force and Iraq’s government are showing utter disdain for the lives of Iraqi civilians and others, continuing a pattern of war crimes and crimes against humanity, Amnesty International said in a new report published today.

At the end of one of the worst months that saw some of the highest number of killings by armed groups since the beginning of the war in Iraq in March 2003, Amnesty International denounced the armed groups’ failure to abide by even the most basic standards of humanitarian law and said there can be no valid justification for deliberate killings of civilians, hostage-taking, and torture and killing of defenceless prisoners.

“Those who order or commit such atrocities place themselves totally beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour,” said Amnesty International. “There is no honour nor heroism in blowing up people going to pray or murdering a terrified hostage. Those carrying out such acts are criminals, nothing less, whose actions undermine any claim they may have to be pursuing a legitimate cause. “

Who would have thought? I thought it deserved a round of applause. But just as I was about to clap, I decided to keep on reading just to make sure. Needless to say, I’m glad I did. Suddenly, the rhetoric begins to subside and another controversial and irresponsible statement is made.

In its 56-page report, Iraq, In Cold Blood: Abuses by Armed Groups, Amnesty International recognises that many Iraqis oppose the continuing presence of US and allied forces in their country, and that these forces have themselves committed grave violations, including killings of civilians and torture of prisoners.

“But abuses committed by one side do not and can not justify abuses by another,” said Amnesty International. “This is all the more the case when the principal victims are ordinary Iraqi men, women and children attempting peacefully to go about their everyday lives. All sides to the ongoing conflict have a fundamental obligation to respect the rights of civilians or of those who are rendered defenceless. Those who breach this obligation, on which ever side they stand, must be made to stop and they must be held to account.”

And then, like all of you reading this now, I begin to throw up in my mouth. Did Amnesty International just equate the intentional slaughter of countless civilians with infrequent accidents made by the American army and Iraqi police? Did they just imply that the root cause of this slaughter is the result of actions by our side? That the MNF has intentionally killed civilians? I have a question for Amnesty International: Who, if anyone, do you want to hold these barbarians to account? The MNF and Iraqi police are risking their lives alongside these civilians every day so that they can bring these murderers to justice. There is absolutely no comparison.

“Wait, Robert! They aren’t saying that! They’re just saying that the U.S. has committed human rights violations!” Are they? I’ll take a page right out of their own full report. Accusations of violating international human rights law is serious business, and I’m sure such a highly esteemed organization wouldn’t be so sloppy with words. Let’s take a look at the Geneva Conventions, as they cite:

A fundamental principle of international humanitarian law is that parties to an armed conflict must at all times distinguish between non-combatants (civilians, prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and others) and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives. It is never permitted to target civilians, other non-combatants, and civilian objects for attack. This principle, known as the principle of distinction, is codified in the four Geneva Conventions and their two Additional Protocols. The principle of distinction is a rule of customary international humanitarian law, binding on all parties to armed conflicts, whether international or non-international.(133)

In order for the United States to be committing human rights violations as the terrorists are, they would have to be doing the exact same thing; that is, intentionally targeting civilians. But underhanded jabs at American forces aren’t my only problem with the report. Despite the fact that this report is aimed at the Iraqi terrorists, all of section 2.3 of the report is dedicated to actions by American forces in Iraq as a preliminary to sections on why armed groups emerged.

Iraqis have generally welcomed the ousting of Saddam Hussain but opposition to the presence of the MNF is widespread reflecting a patriotic response to foreign dominance. Iraqis deeply resented the collapse of their national institutions and harm to their cultural heritage, including the looting and burning of universities, colleges and museums that the occupying powers did not prevent or stop. Iraqis also resented the killing of thousands of civilians and the destruction by the MNF and the widespread abuses carried out, particularly by US forces.

US forces have committed gross violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. They have not taken necessary precautions to minimize risk to civilians. They have used cluster weapons in bombing residential areas, which have resulted in the deaths of many civilians. They have used excessive force in responding to demonstrations, tortured and ill-treated detainees and made them “disappear”. They have made arbitrary arrests and held people in prolonged incommunicado detention.(12) These violations have incensed the Iraqi population, especially in the predominantly Sunni areas in central and western Iraq, and are believed to have fuelled the armed insurgency.

Yes, particularly by the demonic U.S. forces. You know, the ones who are trying to hold the terrorists accountable for real human rights abuses and outright destruction? You may not believe it, but Amnesty Internationa tries to maintain objectivity and impartiality throughout this whole report, stating unequivocally that “Amnesty International neither supported nor opposed the war in Iraq, and takes no position on the legitimacy of armed resistance against foreign or Iraqi troops.” How does it explain, then, a press release before the start of the Iraq war that, “AI urged the international community to pursue solutions that would lead to improvement in the human rights situation in Iraq, not to further deterioration, needless loss of life and increased suffering.” We’ve known their stance from the very beginning. The organization itself can pose as neutral as possible, but the vast majority of the people working for it cannot.

In section 11, Amnesty International makes recommendations to the various parties involved in Iraq about how to better the situation. I’ll resist the temptation to mock the notion that the terrorists might follow them, but read what they recommend to the “armed groups” anyway:

Amnesty International calls on all armed groups in Iraq to:

o Immediately cease all attacks against civilians and other non-combatants, all indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks and all attacks carried out while pretending to be a civilian;
o In particular, immediately cease all attacks against members of the UN and international and local humanitarian organizations and agencies, and ensure unhindered and safe access for humanitarian agencies to all areas;
o Immediately cease all abductions and hostage-taking;
o Immediately cease all executions, torture and ill-treatment of people under their control;
o Immediately cease all threats of death or abduction against civilians;
o End immediately the harassment, death threats and violent attacks against women who exercise their rights to freedom of expression and to freedom of religion;
o Remove any members suspected of abuses from positions and situations where they might continue to perpetrate abuses;
o Publicly condemn all attacks against civilians and other non-combatants, indiscriminate attacks, hostage taking, executions, torture and ill-treatment, and issue instructions to members strictly prohibiting such acts in all circumstances.

The report is a comprehensive one, but not comprehensive enough. As long as civilians weren’t killed, Amnesty International does not condemn any of the overt attacks against the Iraqi forces and multinational forces. If you were astute in reading the above, you might have noticed that there is no recommendation for the terrorists to stop targeting the men and women risking their lives out there; those who are actually trying to better the country.

This faux impartiality that Amnesty International puts forward is both dangerous and stupid. It amounts to a moral relativity that equates the forces of good in the world with those that are evil. On that note, let me end this with an excerpt from my essay called “Amnesty International and moral relativity,” which can apply as much to dictatorships as it does to the terrorists that they fund.

Impartiality is the problem. The human rights movement can never make headway if its leaders can no longer say that democracies are good and dictatorships are bad. That in the former, human rights abuses are an anomaly, and in the latter a rule. It is this same impartiality that allows the aforementioned Sudan to have a chair at the UN Commission on Human Rights alongside China and Zimbabwe.

Amnesty International, along with like-minded organizations, need to do some soul searching. Documentation and investigation of human rights abuses is a valuable contribution to the free world, but over time it has become a mere repetition of motions when it should be an energetic campaign against real tyranny. Likewise, this is not just a simple condemnation. It is a suggestion for progress, so that the cause of human rights can begin moving forward in the world where it needs to be going.