Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Before getting on Amnesty International's "bandwagon", take some
    time to think over their stance on what a "political" prisoner is.
    
    They have no qualms about bringing pressure on foreign governments
    to release _their_ "political" (in Amnesty International's view)
    prisoners, but try to get action out of them to put pressure on
    the U.S. Government to release the "politcal" prisoners right here
    in the United States.
    
    We don't have any ? You think ? Well, think of all the people who have
    been JAILED here in this country for such things as draft-resistance or
    tax-protesting. They were imprisoned for their politcal beliefs. People
    who are jailed for their beliefs have not committed a crime in the true
    sense of the word. Their "crime" was "political" by any reasonable
    criteria. 
    
    If Amnesty International won't touch those cases (they won't), you
    have to question their overall motives.
    
    At least I do.
    
    

    Re: .1
    
    I am not offering an opinion on Amnesty International, but I did
    just see a representative of theirs on the Today show last week
    saying that they were going to emphasize in 1987 the use of
    the death penalty in the US and its [supposed] discrimination
    against certain classes.  I thought Jane Pauley made a bit of
    a fool of herself trying to get the spokesman to "admit" that
    the US wasn't as bad as other countries in their torture of
    political prisoners.
    					Steve

>    Before getting on Amnesty International's "bandwagon", take some
>    time to think over their stance on what a "political" prisoner is.

     Amnesty International has been consistent on their definition of 
what constitutes political prisoners. At the end of this I will list 
area contacts if you wish to verify this yourself. 

     The "bandwagon" for human rights can always take new members,
if indeed there was cause for disenchantment the only way to change the 
policy would be to join. 
    
>    They have no qualms about bringing pressure on foreign governments
>    to release _their_ "political" (in Amnesty International's view)
>    prisoners, but try to get action out of them to put pressure on
>    the U.S. Government to release the "politcal" prisoners right here
>    in the United States.

     It is important you've brought this up. In AI's latest periodical 
they say 

    "In February, as Amnesty International lauches a worldwide campaign
against the death penalty in the United States, all Amnesty sections will
be focused on this issue."

     This is only an example of Amnesty's campaign for human rights in the
US and Great Britain, where, infact, they are based. 
    
>    We don't have any ? You think ? Well, think of all the people who have
>    been JAILED here in this country for such things as draft-resistance or
>    tax-protesting. 
	
     I in fact have a close friend (Jamaican) in prison in Angola, LA under 
questionable circumstances. 

>    If Amnesty International won't touch those cases (they won't), you
>    have to question their overall motives.

     While I agree be critical of any cause you devote yourself to, your
criteria, respectfully, does not hold up. Amnesty's history demonstrates 
a committment to human rights. Your criticisms are unfounded and your
knowledge limited. 


     John    
    

    Re .3
    
>>    They have no qualms about bringing pressure on foreign governments
>>    to release _their_ "political" (in Amnesty International's view)
>>    prisoners, but try to get action out of them to put pressure on
>>    the U.S. Government to release the "politcal" prisoners right here
>>    in the United States.
>
>     It is important you've brought this up. In AI's latest periodical 
>they say 
>
>    "In February, as Amnesty International lauches a worldwide campaign
>against the death penalty in the United States, all Amnesty sections will
>be focused on this issue."
 
    Although I agree with abolishing the death penalty, I don't see
    any connection between the function I was addressing, which is:
    "putting pressure on governments to release 'political' prisoners"
    and the function: "abolishing the death penalty". Those are totally
    different issues and bringing up the latter as a "counter" to my
    original statement is a non-sequitor.
    
>>    If Amnesty International won't touch those cases [political prisoners
>>    in U.S.] (they won't), you have to question their overall motives.
>
>     While I agree be critical of any cause you devote yourself to, your
>criteria, respectfully, does not hold up. Amnesty's history demonstrates 
>a committment to human rights. Your criticisms are unfounded and your
>knowledge limited.
    
    I beg your pardon. Recently: Amnesty International has been approached
    to put its resources to freeing Mr. Irwin Shiff, an outspoken income
    tax protestor who was jailed last December for not filing income
    tax returns. "No," they said, "He's not a political prisoner." -
    thus leaving his (Shiff's) very individual "human rights" totally
    unaddressed.
    
    Unfounded ? Limited knowledge ? Fill me in, if you like, but don't
    accuse. Explain how Amnesty International decided that Mr. Shiff
    is not a "political" prisoner, and how that fits in with their
    "world-wide" campaign for human rights. "World-wide" efforts MUST
    begin on home territory if one is to see any progress.
    
    I remain questioning their overall motives, and NOT from "limited
    knowledge" - thank you.
                           

    Um, folks, maybe this is a topic more suited to SOAPBOX?  If it
    continues at the heat level I see here, I'll be forced to close
    the topic.  
    					Steve

Having been a member of AI for several years, I would like to, very quietly,
insert a word here.

The case of Mr Shiff (sp?) has been mentioned: he is described as a protestor
over income tax or whatever...

It seems to me that this is the sort of case that the ACLU is so fond of
espousing and personally I do not see disagreeing with the system of taxation
of a country (and going to jail because of it) makes you a political prisoner.

I draw a clear distinction between breaking the criminal code of a country
(albeit for political reasons) and breaking laws that are created to abrogate
fundamental human freedoms.

Remember the current (American) ads for AI: "raise your glass and say 'to
freedom'".

Mr. Shiff (or anybody else) is perfectly free to campaign for the abolition
of taxation: if he can get enough people to vote for his candidates he can
gain control of the Congress and get taxation abolished. If that right were
denied him then he would be a political prisoner, but it hasn't been so
he is merely a criminal.

/. Ian .\

    Re .6 
    
>    personally I do not see disagreeing with the system of taxation
>of a country (and going to jail because of it) makes you a political prisoner.
> ...
>I draw a clear distinction between breaking the criminal code of a country
>(albeit for political reasons) and breaking laws that are created to abrogate
>fundamental human freedoms.
>...
> if he can get enough people to vote for his candidates he can
>gain control of the Congress and get taxation abolished. If that right were
>denied him then he would be a political prisoner, but it hasn't been so
>he is merely a criminal
    
    Suppose you believe, as Mr. Shiff does, that the income tax laws and
    methods of its collection in the U.S. "abrogate fundamental human
    freedoms" because the Constitutional protections guaranteed to us all
    are thrown out the window by this process? Does "disagreeing" with this
    in this sense constitute being "merely a criminal". And what is he
    supposed to do with these guaranteed "rights" during the very lengthy
    (perhaps lifetime) period of time while he excercises the additional
    right to TRY (perhaps fail) to get the system changed so that he can
    excercise the very rights that the system is supposed to protect?
    Forget them? 
    
    I'm sorry, in my mind he is VERY MUCH a political prisoner. I really
    don't see how AI can be "for human rights" and not at least look into
    this matter. To shrug it off like that only means to me that they
    are throwing catchy phrases like "political prisoner" to capture
    knee-jerk support, and haven't really studied what the concept con-
    tained in that phrase really means.
    
    I don't like that sort of inconsistent thinking.
    
     

    I have write-locked this topic and moved it to 2B::THENEWSOAPBOX,
    note #74. Please continue the discussion there.
    
    Press KP7 or select to add 2B::THENEWSOAPBOX to your notebook.
    
    Tamzen  H_R moderator