Most Read: Opinions

direct signup

Today’s Opinions poll

Would you use an app that tells you the partisan affiliation of products you're considering buying?

Submit
Next
Review your answers and share

Join a Discussion

Weekly schedule, past shows

Right Turn
Posted at 12:00 PM ET, 05/05/2011

Human Rights Watch or Terrorists Rights Watch?

The purported human rights group Human Rights Watch has been under fire from critics and its former chief for its overtly anti-Israel agenda. Even after Richard Goldstone recanted, HRW (which contributed data used in his report) insisted that Israel wasn’t off the hook. Well, now HRW may have gone a step too far, even for its liberal apologists.

Ben Birnbaum reports in the Washington Times:

The executive director of Human Rights Watch criticized United Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for calling the killing of Osama bin Laden an act of justice, saying that the Al Qaeda leader was denied due process.

Kenneth Roth opined on bin Laden’s death via his Twitter account (@KenRoth): “Ban Ki-moon wrong on #Osama bin Laden: It’s not “justice” for him to be killed even if justified; no trial, conviction”.

Mr. Ban had called bin Laden’s killing “a watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism,” adding that personally he was “very much relieved by the news that justice has been done to such a mastermind of international terrorism.” . . .

The New York-based Human Rights Watch has been relatively mum on the Al Qaeda leader’s death, issuing a terse statement quoting Mr. Roth: “At a time when citizens around the world have engaged in peaceful demonstrations in the name of freedom and democracy, bin Laden’s death is a reminder of the thousands of innocents who suffer when terrorist groups seek political change through brutal means.”

HRW later “clarified” that it didn’t really have enough information to deem the killing “illegal.” Whew, that’s a relief. You’d think the removal of a mass murderer who is responsible for thousands of deaths would get even a mild cheer. But no, HRW has made perfectly clear that its main goal is finding fault with the West.

Roth wasn’t alone in criticizing the United States:

‘If he wasn’t shooting at the soldiers, the killing should be investigated,’ said Brad Adams, Asia director of New York-based Human Rights Watch.

‘At this point we don’t believe the place Osama bin Laden was killed was an area of armed conflict, so law enforcement was required here,’ Adams said in Bangkok at the launch of a Human Rights Watch report on last year’s anti-government protests in Thailand.

Bin Laden was killed Monday in a Pakistani suburb by a task force of US Navy SEALs who were dropped onto the roof of his compound.

‘On the face of it, it was a fire-first situation,’ Adams said. ‘People are saying that justice has been done, but justice has not been done. Justice is when you arrest someone and put them on trial.’

HRW therefore has essentially taken the Hamas line: Killing Osama is bad and the IDF is bad.

HRW’s facade as a legitimate human rights group has eroded bit by bit. It should now be obvious to all but the most obtuse that the Soros-funded group is yet another anti-West, anti-Israel attack dog trafficking in the language of human rights. Media outlets should cease citing and sourcing from the group as if it were a neutral, respectable organization. It’s neither.

By  |  12:00 PM ET, 05/05/2011

Categories:  Human Rights

 
Read what others are saying
     

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company