Nazi scandal engulfs Human Rights Watch

[shira]

snip...

The revelation of Marc Garlasco’s hobby was also significant because he was the first and only person at Human Rights Watch with any kind of military expertise. While staff members at HRW tend to be lawyers, journalists or political activists, Garlasco, 40, had worked as a civilian employee at the Pentagon for seven years before joining HRW in 2004. According to his HRW biography, he had served as “a senior intelligence analyst covering Iraq” and his last position there was as “chief of high-value targeting” at the very beginning of the Iraq war.

This apparently meant that it was he who selected targets for air strikes. According to an interview Garlasco gave to Der Spiegel, he was a key player in an air strike on Basra on April 5, 2003 intended to kill Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as Chemical Ali, but which instead took the lives of 17 civilians.

In another interview, Garlasco said he was responsible for up to 50 other air strikes — none of which killed anyone on the target list but which accounted for several hundred civilian deaths. Soon after the Chemical Ali air strike, he left to join Human Rights Watch. In interviews he has suggested that he did so because he was sickened by his responsibility for these deaths, and had always been opposed to the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Associates of Garlasco have told me that there had long been tensions between Garlasco and HRW’s Middle East Division in New York — perhaps because he sometimes stuck his neck out and did not follow the HRW line. Garlasco himself apparently resented what he felt was pressure to sex up claims of Israeli violations of laws of war in Gaza and Lebanon, or to stick by initial assessments even when they turned out to be incorrect.

In June 2006, Garlasco had alleged that an explosion on a Gaza beach that killed seven people had been caused by Israeli shelling. However, after seeing the details of an Israeli army investigation that closely examined the relevant ballistics and blast patterns, he subsequently told the Jerusalem Post that he had been wrong and that the deaths were probably caused by an unexploded munition in the sand. But this went down badly at Human Rights Watch HQ in New York, and the admission was retracted by an HRW press release the next day.

more...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7076462.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1

[shira]

1. More from the article...

"In 20 years they have published only four reports on the conflict in Indian-controlled Kashmir, for example, even though the conflict has taken at least 80,000 lives in these two decades, and torture and extrajudicial murder have taken place on a vast scale. Perhaps even more tellingly, HRW has not published any report on the postelection violence and repression in Iran more than six months after the event.

When I asked the Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson if HRW was ever going to release one, she said: “We have a draft, but I’m not sure I want to put one out.” Asked the same question, executive director Kenneth Roth told me that the problem with doing a report on Iran was the difficulty of getting into the country.

I interviewed a human-rights expert at a competing organisation in Washington who did not wish to be named because “we operate in a very small world and it’s not done to criticise other human-rights organisations”. He told me he was “not surprised” that HRW has still not produced a report on the violence in Iran: “They are thinking about how it’s going to be used politically in Washington. And it’s not a priority for them because Iran is just not a bad guy that they are interested in highlighting. Their hearts are not in it. Let’s face it, the thing that really excites them is Israel.”

[Ian David]

2. Holy fuck! You have to read this whole thing. n/t

[Swede]

3. Wow. That is an eye opener.

Since the Garlasco affair blew up, critics of Human Rights Watch have raised questions about other appointments. An Israeli newspaper revealed that Joe Stork, the deputy head of HRW’s Middle East department, was a radical leftist who put out a magazine in the 1970s that praised the murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. In 1976 he attended an anti-Zionist conference in Baghdad hosted by the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. A bit of fact-checking and a little less wide-eyed instant acceptance of claims would be nice...

An Israeli newspaper revealed that Joe Stork, the deputy head of HRW’s Middle East department, was a radical leftist who put out a magazine in the 1970s that praised the murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.

This came up last year and was pretty high octane on accusations and very low rate on any actual facts to back up those accusations.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=283952&mesg_id=284060

[Swede]

6. Thanks for the link.

Here more from it.

Stork is not alone. When he began to work at HRW, he had no special expertise in the field. His only talent was a series of articles that were exceptionally hostile to Israel. That is not surprising. The Director of the Middle East Department, Sarah Leah Whitson, arrived at HRW after having been in a pro-Arab body. This is legitimate. Is there a chance that someone from the Anti-Defamation League would be accepted to HRW?

Global human rights are in a predicament. The UN Human Rights Council has turned into the Dark Regimes Rights Council. Saudi Arabia, Iran and Libya have an automatic majority. Non-governmental organizations, such as HRW, were supposed to stand against such bodies. But in reality a sad thing happened, Whitson flew to Saudi Arabia recently to raise funds for HRW. And they don’t even understand that they have a problem. This is how non-governmental bodies have transformed antagonism towards Israel to the main issue. They are biased to the extreme. They place Israel in the same category as Sudan, and publish weak protests on the suicide and rocket industries, just to discharge a perfunctory obligation.

[shira]

7. Here's a lot more on Stork that is quoted and cited from legitimate sources...

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1629

[Violet_Crumble]

9. That mindless crap is NOT what I linked to...

What yr quoting is part of the same dishonest smear job that contained the false accusations about Mr Stork. Are you interested in facts or are you more interested in smearing HRW? It does appear to be the latter...

Here's what I linked to:

'That article is really clumsy and full of unsupported accusations..

And I don't even have to go on about what a crudsluggy mire of insanity Commentary mag is to explain why.

None of the claims made by this writer against Stork are supported by quotes or a reference to where they've read the stuff they're accusing him of, and the one quote he produces does NOT show support for terrorism. Even though he gives no hint as to where the quote was taken from so it can be read in context, it's clear from the quote that appears in the article that he was talking about the effect of Munich on morale amongst Palestinians. How on earth does anyone take someone saying what the effect of something was to be them cheering away and supporting it? I really don't understand the lack of logic behind that. And to make the whole article even more ridiculous, he then goes on after having a whinge about objectivity and neutrality to cite CAMERA and Gerald Steinberg, both of whom are very lacking in objectivity and neutrality, as support for his 'argument'.

Anyway, can anyone point me to instances of Mr Stork displaying his fanatical urge to eliminate Israel? I'm sure if he's so fanatical, he'd have plenty to say about it, as fanatics are never shy about sharing their views. See, I've got a very, very strong suspicion that this claim is just total dishonest bullshit. And if anyone does go looking, can they come up with something in the last decade? It's just peoples views change from when they're very young, and he's being accused of holding these views now, so I'd like to see some current ranting about wanting to eliminate Israel...

As for Ben-Dror Yemeni, I went looking for some of his widely translated articles, and all I could find was article after article defending any human rights violations committed by Israel. Clearly he has massive issues with any criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and I'm really not sure at all based on this article why anyone would take him seriously at all...'

[azurnoir]

10. why is it that the "pro"s" must constantly tout

disingenuous "facts" if not out right lies as in the case of the poster you are responding to
thank you for the link actually I was going to go back to the original thread on the t-shirt kerfuffle but decided that perhaps some here needed a distracted feel good thread considering events of the past week

[Violet_Crumble]

11. It does remind me of back when I used to take on the 'pro-lifers' at Rock For Life...

There were a few of them who'd pop up with a bunch of crap from such 'legitimate' sources as Feminists For Life which were full of factual errors and false accusations and smears such as the stuff about Joe Stork that Swede posted. They'd be corrected, go quiet for a while, and then pop up again in new threads trotting out the exact same incorrect nonsense word for word. People like that are zealots and True Believers (not saying Swede is, but I do find their reaction to my post rather bizarre) who suffer from cognitive dissonance...

[ConsAreLiars]

4. The author of the hit piece, no surprise, is another reich-wing prpoagandist.

A film critic for the NY Post. Wow! There's some expertise! See his bio at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Foreman_%28journalist%29 .

His opinions and naked bigotry get published in places like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Journal_%28New_York%29 and his founding of a Reich Wing propaganda zine says what needs to be said about those you support and whose causes you advocate. The wiki regarding that deformed author's mag - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpoint_%28magazine%29 The following is from that source.

Standpoint ignited nationwide controversy with its launch edition, in which Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, called for the Church to regain a prominent position in public life and blamed the "newfangled and insecurely founded doctrine of multiculturalism" for entrenching the segregation of communities. Nazir-Ali claimed that the decline of Christianity and the rise of liberal values in the UK during the 1960s had created a moral vacuum which radical Islam threatened to fill. "We have argued that it is necessary to understand where we have come from, to guide us to where we are going, and to bring us back when we wander too far from the path of national destiny", the bishop wrote. <5>
....
Standpoint was founded in May 2008 and immediately labeled a "Right-wing answer to journals such as Prospect".

(edit to improve formatting)

[shira]

8. Yeah, it's as if nothing in the article is true and HRW is as pure as the driven snow

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Why is it that criticising the author of an OP is only acceptable when you do it?

The most incredibly crap articles full of character attacks and lies can also contain grains of truth.
I haven't seen anyone claim HRW are as pure as the driven snow.
So, what's yr point?

[shira]

14. "grains of truth"

So what is disingenuous about the article, Violet?

FTR, I have no idea who the author is, but as we both know - there's nothing really new in this article that hasn't already been reported by other valid sources.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. I see you didn't bother answering the questions I asked you.

Gonna give it a try?

btw, yr idea of what constitutes a valid source is incredibly stinky given yr extreme bias...

[shira]

19. Your questions are hardly worth answering

If the criticism of this author was based on something false he reported within this article, that would make for a better case against the OP - don't you think?

You see, when I criticize certain authors it's because those authors are usually full of shit and have very stinky extreme biases which lead to dishonest and inaccurate reporting.

You let me know when my sources are proven to be dishonest and inaccurate like most of yours, okay? ;)

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Oh-kay, but it's a bit rude of you to sit there firing off 'questions' the way you do...

Let me guess. You fire off all those 'questions' because you think yr questions are definately worth answering?

I'm not at all sure why you think I'm under some obligation to let you know when yr sources are proven to be dishonest (as for sources I use, I doubt very much that most of them are dishonest and inaccurate) anymore than I am to let you know when yr being dishonest or inaccurate. As when I used to get into it with zealoted antichoice 'advocates', there's absolutely no room at all for doubt or questioning their own views, so I don't waste my time trying to get them to admit they're wrong on anything. I post for those who are reading who aren't singing from the same hymn book as the zealot is...

[shira]

26. Your questions and criticisms are part of your game here

You viciously question and criticize others’ views but are careful not to offer your own views as honestly as those whose views you attack. These discussions are therefore some kind of online game to you. You hide your beliefs and the meaning of whatever you say as much as possible so that others can't criticize you for your own illiberal and stinky views.

That's why most of your questions and comments are hardly worth responding to.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. I tend to ask questions because I'm curious to have an answer...

And I tend to criticise that which I don't agree with. If that was a game, there's plenty of much less boring ones over at Facebook I could play with where I wouldn't have to put up with weirdos who try to tell everyone else what I think and believe and always get it so abysmally wrong. Maybe you should stick to telling people what you think and believe?

As for honesty, while I'm honest about my views and make sure any sarcastic comments are identified as such, the same can't be said for you. Just one example is where you claimed the settlers in Gaza were the victims of ethnic cleansing and then much later on when you were objecting to the term ethnic cleansing being used in regard to Palestinians, informed me that you'd just been joking and hadn't meant it about the settlers being victims of ethnic cleansing. As I said to you back then, how is anyone supposed to take anything you say seriously?

If as you claim most of my questions and comments are hardly worth responding to, you do spend an inordinate amount of time responding to my posts. It's that question thing you have problems with, and I've noticed you ignore the questions of many other DUers in this forum, so it's not just me...

[shira]

28. come on now - you hold back and aren't open b/c u fear being criticized for your actual stinky views

We're talking about you right now so enough of your baseless accusations and your "look over there tactics".

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Well, there's nothing for it. You'd best tell us all what my 'stinky' views are...

Who am I to know what my own views are? The nerve of me for even trying to do so!

Uh, for someone who claims to not waste time answering me or my questions, you sure as hell do like talking about me!

[shira]

30. I could tell you for certain if you were more open and honest and amenable to answering questions

I don't expect you to be open and honest with me or anyone else here who asks you pointed questions so what I'm thinking of doing is acting like you in our future exchanges. I'll treat you as I see you treat others here in your little online game. You'll then find out how it is to be on the other side and we'll see if you enjoy it much.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. But you already sit there telling everyone what my views supposedly are...

I wish you'd make up yr mind!

btw, probably not the wisest move to whine about me not answering questions when you flat out refuse to answer mine...

I'll treat you as I see you treat others here in your little online game. You'll then find out how it is to be on the other side and we'll see if you enjoy it much.

LOL. That should be really entertaining. Can I suggest the first 'other' for you to copy the way I treat them? Please? Please?

btw, I don't know if you've been sponsored by someone to use the word 'stinky' as much as possible, but if not, there's such a thing as totally overdoing something to the point of full on saturation...

[shira]

32. You do the same, assigning views to me that I don't hold -but because you never answer questions....

...I have no choice but to assume what your views are.

Tell you what - would you like to start an exchange in which you ask, I answer and then I ask and you answer? I'm counting on the fact that you won't bite because I'm certain I'm correct about you not wanting to divulge what you honestly believe for fear of having your views challenged and criticized. All this being a game to you, you're much more comfortable viciously attacking others while hiding your own views as much as possible.

Of course, you'll probably write that you feel you can't have a rational discussion with me, but the fact is when OTHERS here like Oberliner and Pelsar ask you pointed questions you don't answer them either. So it's not just me and you can't use the lame excuse that you'd answer if your opponent was rational. You truly fear being totally open and honest with your views on I/P.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Stop doing that silly 'but you do it tooo!' crap...

Tell you what. I've given you so many chances to have a constructive discussion and each time you've blown it, and I've now told you more than a few times why yr not being given any more chances. Feel free to go back into the archives and reaquaint yrself with what I said. I'm finding yr belief that I don't express my views in this forum to be incredibly bizarre, as I most definately do and only half an hour or so back ticked all but one box on a set of beliefs about the conflict that another poster had posted...

I'm not sure what a 'pointed' question is as opposed to the normal questions I ask people, but Obie and I are pretty much on the same level when it comes to answering each others questions. When it comes to pelsar (btw, it makes me uncomfortable when you drag other DUers into things and attempt to speak on their behalf), I'm 110% positive that there are no questions he's asked me that I haven't answered, and if there were, he'd let me know...

You truly fear being totally open and honest with your views on I/P.

Yes, clearly I'm terrified of the repercussions of expressing my views on the conflict on an internet discussion forum. I'm a shy and retiring poppet like that ;)

Anyway, I'm interested to know what views you think I've expressed where I've been dishonest about my own views. Making claims like that does seem to be an incredibly clumsy and lazy 'debate' tactic, as you could say 'Violet believes that Israel must be destroyed! Not next week or next month, but tomorrow!!!' and I could say 'Well, no. That's not what I believe at all and if you read my contributions to this forum you'll see that's not the case' and you could go 'Yes, but yr not totally open and honest about yr views and this leads me to the only conclusion to be reached - Violet wants to see Israel destroyed tomorrow. No-one can trust what you say about yr own views because yr not honest about them!!!!'

See how utterly silly it is to accuse people of dishonesty when it comes to them stating their own views?

[shira]

37. so stop complaining as long as long as you persist in doing it to your opponents here

As for things you haven't been open and honest about, let's go with 2 things...

1. Let's imagine you get what you want and Israel is left with no choice but to unilaterally end the occupation and abandon all settlements beyond the 1948 green line. A paper peace begins and kassams start flying and suicide bombing resumes. What can Israel do to protect Israeli civilians? Be very clear.

They get criticized for roadblocks or checkpoints. If they invade temporarily, kill aggressors and withdraw, they're criticized. Shoot back, criticized. Surgical strikes are 'extrajudicial killings'. Interrupt weapon supplies from Iran and they're violating sovereignty. So what can Israel do in self-defense without being criticized, Violet?

-----------

2. Why do you think B'tselem and BTS claim Hamas cynically uses human shields among Palestinians - and that this shielding effects IDF actions - but HRW, AI, and Goldstone say no such evidence exists proving those Hamas actions?

[ConsAreLiars]

13. The fact that you rely on and cite reich wing sources is common knowledge.

As is the fact that nothing you post has any resemblance to anything progressive or liberal.

[shira]

15. The former head of HRW who now criticizes the organization isn't progressive or liberal?

What's progressive or liberal about a human rights organization that spends a disproportionate amount of its time and resources trumping up charges against Israel while ignoring worse situations elsewhere? For example, ignoring Hamas' violations of human rights against Palestinians before, during, and after OCL? If anything, THAT is standard "Reichwing" 101 procedure.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. HRW don't have progressive or liberal ideals? That's some crazyweird shit yr posting there...

Why do you insist on repeating the same false accusations about human rights groups like HRW and AI over and over again even though you get shown that what yr saying is wrong? You've made the claim countless times that HRW ignores 'worse situations elsewhere', and I've seen other posters provide links that prove you wrong, yet you appear to totally ignore what they've provided for you to look at.

[shira]

18. Not when they trump up bogus charges against Israel and ignore Hamas' abuse of Palestinians

HRW completely ignores Hamas (and Fatah) violations of Palestinian human rights and I'm certain you're aware of this. Why pretend they don't? HRW hasn't even done anything about Iranian human rights abuses since the bogus elections more than 6 months ago. What's liberal or progressive about that one, Violet?

[LeftishBrit]

20. This isn't true with regard to Iran

HRW has been saying a LOT about Iranian human rights:

http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/iran

[shira]

21. The claim was that 6 months after the election, there were no reports from HRW about HR abuses

1. The election was in June, so were there reports from HRW prior to January 2010? The report you cited is 7 months afterwards.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=307906&mesg_id=307908

You think everything cited in those quotes from post #1 above are simply made up?


2. Incidentally, I don't believe HRW and AI are Leftist, liberal, or progressive organizations WRT Israel. I wrote about this the other day and I believe it also applies to the leaders of HRW and AI...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x307009#307841

[LeftishBrit]

22. There were plenty of reports before January as well. Here are just a few.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/06/g8-press-iran-rights-free-expression

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/15/iran-end-violence-against-peaceful-protests

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/19/iran-halt-crackdown

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/08/iran-detainees-describe-beatings-pressure-confess

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/21/iran-stop-framing-government-critics

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/04/iran-show-trial-exposes-arbitrary-detention

For the rest: I am not a member of HRW. And I don't know if all or any of the statements were made up, but Foreman clearly has a very strong agenda against the organization -and possibly against human rights organizations in general - and is not an unbiased source. Quotes could be correct but taken out of context. It's a bit like relying on Ben White on the subject of Israel.

In any case, the constant accusations of human rights organizations (apart from the UN) only focussing on Israel; never bringing up other issues; etc., when it's usually very easy to find contrary evidence, *are* untrue. And most people who support these organizations don't do so because of Israel; they do so because of worldwide abuses. And these *demonstrably* untrue - and constant - allegations make it harder to take other allegations seriously. Also when these allegations are made, people may believe them and therefore not check out or join the campaigns about Iran, etc.

[shira]

23. Good, I'm sending these links to a few "pro-I" organizations and I'll let you know what they say.

If I can find some contact info. for the author, I'll send him this too.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Does this mean yr going to stop claiming that HRW ignores other conflicts and countries?

It's just that I've seen posters such as LB provide you with lists of links in the past, yet within a few weeks yr back to making the *HRW/AI ignore other conflicts/countries* accusation.

[shira]

33. More to come when I hear back on the HRW reports on Iran....

I contacted a few agencies to get their input on the OP's claim that HRW didn't issue any reports on Iran for 6 months after the post-election HR abuses. I really have a big problem with reports that disseminate false information - especially from "pro-Israel" sources which must be honest and accurate. If only Israel's detractors felt the same...

But as to HRW ignoring other countries, the fact is Israel gets disproportionate attention in the middle east from HRW in comparison to neighboring Arab countries who are FAR worse in their human rights abuses to hundreds of millions of Arabs. The focus, energy, and time commitment spent on Israel (many times with bogus, trumped up charges that the shoddy Goldstone Report is based on) detracts from much needed attention, time, energy, and focus that should be spent on hundreds of millions of Arabs in surrounding countries.

Those victims of oppression deserve just as much attention as any other victims, but it appears you disagree for reasons that are unclear and ultimately regressive and illiberal. It's not that Israel shouldn't be held accountable for their actions so "look over there". The problem is those other nations' leaders get a free pass by "looking over there" to Israel while far worse is going on in their own countries.

So in that respect, HRW does indeed "ignore" millions of other victims so that they can continue their inquisition against the Jewish State.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Huh? You need their permission to acknowledge that you were making a false accusation?

That's kind of silly, don't you think? You made a totally false accusation about HRW when you said they ignored other conflicts and countries, and it really speaks volumes that you can't admit you were wrong even on something like that where evidence to show you were wrong was posted...

[shira]

36. I'm not sure it's a false accusation. I want to know what's behind the quotes in post #1 above

What's silly is your pretense that HRW's disproportionate focus on Israel doesn't in any way take away from much needed focus on hundreds of millions of Arabs suffering far worse than Palestinians outside of Israel. I'd really like to know how someone who purports to care for human rights thinks it's okay for an HR organization to sometimes falsify reports against Israel (like Goldstone did) and therefore waste time and resources that could be better spent focusing on real or worse abuses elsewhere in the Arab world (including Palestinians who suffer abuses under Hamas).

You see, when HRW for example *ignores* Hamas' major abuses against Gazan Palestinians, and some of these abuses are things that occur according to B'tselem and other leftist Israeli groups like BTS, then it is not wrong or silly to claim that HRW simply isn't doing the job they claim they're supposed to do. In fact, they're doing a major disservice to Palestinians whose HR's they purport to champion. I'm not certain at all what you find respectable in such reprehensible suppression of facts and evidence by HRW. It's clear how Hamas benefits from HRW, because HRW isn't really at all interested in Hamas' internal repression of Palestinians - but they certainly appreciate what HRW does to further Hamas' cause against Israel. That's pathetic, Violet. And you pretend none of this is happening.

[shira]

38. Looks like the links you provided are to press releases and NOT full reports (like in Feb 2010)

"Detailed HRW reports and accompanying media campaigns are not comparable to short press releases, whether on Kashmir or Palestinian terror. Reports indicate a major investment, while stand-alone press releases are quickly forgotten, as detailed in NGO Monitor research. "