AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

U.S. isn't all sugar and spice

Readers suggest Americans are some of the worst human rights abusers

Re; 'Amnesty International bites the hand that feeds it.' Catherine Ford,
Calgary Herald, Oct. 6.

Ford's column is one long immature squawk from beginning to end.

Amnesty International investigates human rights abuses world-wide. If human
rights abuses exist in the United States, is it not duty-bound to report
them? If it didn't, how much credibility would it command?

It has put out its report. The only thing that should concern U.S.
citizens is the truth of the report. Establish the truth of the allegations
concerning abuses of human rights, then take action to have these abuses
ended.

We have no right to point the finger at others when our own house needs to
be put in order.

Pat Dolan

Vancouver, B.C.

Ford has her bloomers in a knot because Amnesty International has decided
to criticize the United States because its citizens provide most of AI's
funding.

Therein is her message. It's OK to brutalize your citizens as long as you
bribe Amnesty International not to interfere.

In fact, I would not be surprised if AI's financial support emanating from
the U.S. does not increase as a result of this campaign. Providing funds
that result in your country being told to meet standards of civilized
society is truly `value for the money' in my book. If AI decided to put
Canada under that same microscope, by all means count me in for a
contribution.

Another burr under Ford's saddle is that the U.S. is not at the top of the
brutality league. She would presumably prefer that Amnesty International
focus exclusively on the most brutal regime on the planet and leave every
other country alone. No wonder the U.S. funds dictatorships. As long as
there are more repressive countries around, those of Ford's persuasion will
defend America's `right' to do what it will with its citizenry, free of
outside censure.

Alan Randell

Victoria, B.C.

Ford's defence of the United States against Amnesty International started
unraveling with the headline. Why would a human rights organization
claiming scrupulous non-alignment ever wish to be `fed' by any government?

Ford's logic didn't improve. Her argument that Third World rights will
deteriorate because of AI's charges will somehow diminish the `moral
authority' of America and its western allies is fatuous. To the extent that
`moral authority' is only authoritarian and unable to benefit from open,
well-reasoned criticism, it loses all claim to `morality'.

It would have been preferable if Ford, who admits some substance to AI's
charges, could have waited for their specifics before launching her
defence. Those of us who have taken a close look at the excesses of
America's messianic drug war for several years, have often wondered when AI
would finally notice the burgeoning American police state.

We do not expect to be surprised by the details in AI's report. I must
assume that Ford, if her spirited defence of Uncle Sam is sincere, will
find that many of those details give her pause.

Thomas J. O'Connell

San Mateo, Calif.

Ford is far wide of the mark when she suggests that Amnesty International
(AI) will suffer for exposing United States police, court and prison
corruption. In the past, I have refused to support AI specifically because
it gives the U.S. a free ride on human rights abuses. Now that it has shown
some integrity and courage, I plan on making a contribution to its cause.

If anything, AI will gain financially for its honesty and refusal to be
intimidated by a perverted system that points fingers at everyone else
while having one of the worst human rights abuse records on the planet.

Instead of condemning the messenger, it's time to clean up our act so we
can resume an honourable position among nations.

Redford Givens

San Francisco, Calif.

Checked-by: Mike Gogulski