inky wrote:
But as for things I don't agree with, their name pretty much spells it out - Amnesty. They released people who could be potential threats to public in the past as part of backdoor deals with different organizations - they love to negotiate. Their stance on death penalty is also another thing I don't agree with; unlike them, I don't believe it's worth risking the safety of other innocent people in hopes of "rehabilitating" certain criminals and I strongly believe that some people are better off dead.
Understandable...those are pretty core beliefs to have to compromise. But everyone negotiates in the real world, it's the only way to get anything done, especially when you're dealing with hostile states or groups. It's a lot of gray, and much less black and white.
Anyway, our conversation reminded me of a really cool interview I heard on NPR the other day with Bobby Graham's son, I forget his name. His evangelical Christian charity has been working in southern Sudan since the 90's (maybe in the late 80's too). The ICC just recently issued an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir (the president of Sudan), and NPR was asking why his charity group was continuing to negotiate with Bashir. Basically, he said, He's the guy in charge. Sometimes you just have to deal with who's in power because that's the reality on the ground. Yea, he's a terrible person, he bombed one of my hospitals, but who's going to come down here and arrest him?
I'm bad at paraphrasing, the whole interview is much better. Compromising in humanitarian crises is never easy. Could you imagine trying to negotiate with someone you know tried to bomb you? Very gray indeed. I don't think I could do that
