Back in August, I noted allegations that Amnesty International had sent out a press release condemning an official Israeli report on a shooting death in Gaza, apparently without having actually seen the report. I added:
Early yesterday morning, I emailed Amnesty’s press contact for the Middle East, Nicole Choueiry, and introduced myself as blogger for the Volokh Conspiracy. I forwarded the NGO Watch link, and asked if she “could confirm or deny that Amnesty wrote its press release without having access to the full report the Israeli army made on the incident?” I also asked “whether the basis for the underlying press release by Amnesty was a specific critique of the Israeli report on the incident, or was part of a general critique of Israel for not conducting independent investigations of civilian deaths in Gaza.” (In other words, would Amnesty automatically condemn any report, no matter how thorough, issued by the Israeli army, because it was issued by the Israeli army). A few hours later Ms. Choueiry responded that she would get back to me with a detailed response shortly. I haven’t heard back, but will let readers know if and when I do.
Ms. Choueiry never did get back to me, which I take as an implicit acknowledgment that Amnesty condemned the Israeli report without having seen it. I had reason to be suspicious of Amnesty’s reports from the West Bank and Gaza before, but at this point I think it’s fair to discount them entirely, at least until Amnesty replaces its local staff.
WF says:
I apologize if I was out of line before. To put the point in a less confrontational manner(which I should have done in the first place), David Bernstein condemns Amnesty for comdemning reports based on their source rather than contents while engaging in exactly the same behaviour with respect to Amnesty.
September 29, 2008, 9:07 amejo says:
wouldn’t they have to get back to him with the promised detailed response for DB to be condemned for engaging in the exact same kind of conduct he is accusing them of? would it shock anyone to know that these enablers of terror might engage in such conduct-about as much as learning that Palestinians make false atrocity allegations and then have dead civilians who miraculously rise up from their stretchers when one of their fellow terrorists/actors drops them.
September 29, 2008, 9:20 amWF says:
wouldn’t they have to get back to him with the promised detailed response for DB to be condemned for engaging in the exact same kind of conduct he is accusing them of?
No.
(of course, I’m not condemning anyone, just making an observation)
It’s also complete BS to refer to AI as “enablers of terror” etc.
September 29, 2008, 9:49 amLarry Fafarman says:
I am Larry Fafarman, a Holocaust Denier. Even though I’ve been disinvited from posting to this blog, I continued to do so anyway. Any time I post, David Bernstein is going to delete my message and put this in instead.
September 29, 2008, 9:59 amejo says:
absolutely, I also believe that posts on politics and bailout are irrelevant for a law blog as well. if it doesn’t occur within a courtroom, it is of no relevance to the law. besides, all this jewish stuff make me feel uncomfortable.
September 29, 2008, 10:04 amOren says:
DB, perhaps they read a leaked copy that they were not entitled to and your request would blow their cover? Of course, it’s also quite likely that they condemned the report without reading it. I just don’t see how you could know one way or the other.
September 29, 2008, 10:22 amRichard Aubrey says:
Why would anybody presume that AI HQ has problems with their ME staff?
September 29, 2008, 10:39 amKen Arromdee says:
No.
Yes.
There’s a big difference between criticizing the organization based on nothing when they said something and you don’t want to listen to it (which is what AI seems to have done), and criticizing the organization based on their refusal to say anything (which is what David did).
September 29, 2008, 10:41 amWF says:
Ken, it is of course completely fine to criticize anybody for not returning emails, especially if they promised to. That’s simply impolite.
On the other hand, dismissing reports out of hand based on your opinion of the organization which produced the report is both what DB accuses AI of doing, and what he says he’ll do with AI’s reports.
September 29, 2008, 11:01 amDavidBernstein says:
WF, if I were critiquing what Amnesty writes, I would of course read it. Instead, given a limited amount of time and energy, I’m just saying that since Amnesty doesn’t have much credibility at this point, I’m not going to waste my time trying to figure out how much of what they say is accurate. Amnesty could have taken the same position vis a vis the Israeli army report. Instead of denouncing it with the implication they actually studied it, they could have just said, “we think the Israeli army is not a credible source, so we’re not going to even read their report.” Instead, Amnesty stated “The army’s so-called investigation lacked any semblance of impartiality.” I wouldn’t claim that any particular Amnesty report was biased or unfair without actually reading it. Note that I gave Amnesty the opportunity to clarify that they were just saying that no Israeli army report is ever credible, and they failed to do so.
September 29, 2008, 11:19 amWF says:
Prof Bernstein, I think what you’re doing wrt the reports is pretty reasonable. I mean I’m not trying to figure out how much of AI’s reports are exactly accurate either.
On the other hand, it seems to me that whether you dismiss reports one by one or as a whole doesn’t make much of a difference; you wouldn’t necessarily need to read the entire report to determine whether it’s impartial either. You could, for example, see if there were any outsiders involved in writing or reviewing it.
September 29, 2008, 12:21 pmDavidBernstein says:
WF, Amnesty’s underlying complaint seems to be that the IDF was investigating itself. A press release that said “IDF report exonerates Israeli army; Amnesty continues to call for independent investigation” would be fine. Instead of that, Amnesty press release suggests that the report was not a real investigation, and was not researched and written objectively. I don’t see how one could possibly conclude that without analyzing the actual report.
September 29, 2008, 12:30 pmWF says:
I can’t see why one can(and you do) conclude something about all the reports an organization produces(which is completely fine, in my opinion; some organizations are prone to producing reports which are not objectively written) but not use this conclusion when thinking about a particular report.(which is not to say that reading the report isn’t better than not reading it, if it’s released to you)
September 29, 2008, 12:55 pmWF says:
(If there was an implication that the AI person who criticized the report read it and in fact they haven’t, then that’s wrong, obviously.)
September 29, 2008, 12:58 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Rushdie on Amnesty International says:
[...] doesn’t send out press releases condemning investigative reports they haven’t seen or anything. Oh, wait; right…. Categories: International Human Rights Law, War on [...]
February 20, 2010, 10:26 pm