Scott Horton Interviews Jennifer Daskal

Scott Horton, October 06, 2008

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Jennifer Daskal, senior counsel for Human Rights Watch, discusses the invasion of Somalia by U.S.-backed Ethiopian forces, renditions “performed” by the FBI, CIA and Ethiopian forces, the major humanitarian crisis in Somalia and the lack of support for the kidnapped victims.

MP3 here. (19:12)

Jennifer Daskal is a lawyer who serves as senior counsel for Human Rights Watch, and focuses on issues of terrorism, criminal law and immigration.

11 Responses to “Jennifer Daskal”

  1. Human Rights Watch is funded by the US govt therefore not independent and always covers up for the US. Notice how she blames all the torture and abuse on Ethiopia. According Ms. Daskal the FBI,CIA only “interrrogated” the victims, yah right!!!! The whole concept of human rights is a canard used by Western govts to accuse other nations they dont like. For the west, when it comes to human rights it is do as we say not as we do.

  2. xiis:

    What is the evidence that HRW is “funded by the US govt”? The organization may be based in the US, but I have been contributing to it for years and have not found anything to suggest that it accepts support from any government or government-funded agency, as they declare on their website.

    Of course, that you so surely make the assertion, I assume you have some solid evidence. Would you mind sharing it?

  3. Human Rights Watch is not directly funded by the US govt but has extensive links with parastatal organizations such as National Endowment for Democracy which is basically an arm of the US foreign policy establishment. Not to mention the current leader Kenneth Roth was a former US ]attorney.

  4. “the activities of HRW’s Americas advisors are closely entwined with those being pursued by various ‘democracy promoting’ elites. In fact, the numerous overlaps that exist between HRW’s Americas advisory board and the ‘democracy promoting’ establishment are so extensive that in many cases you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two groups. This raises a number of serious issues, as if HRW were really genuinely concerned with the promotion of democracy and human rights, then knowledge of their links to anti-democratic organizations – which they must certainly be aware of by now – should surely give them cause to rethink their choice of advisors at the very least. However, given HRW’s elitist origins (fully outlined in the introduction) it seems more likely that such ‘democratic’ ties are actually an integral part of their modus operandi. Indeed, HRW’s intimate relations with ‘democracy promoters’ like the NED and USIP may be merely seen as a reflection of the high degree of influence liberal elites and liberal foundations have over the running and funding of HRW.”[3

  5. Edward S. Herman, David Peterson, and George Szamuely argue that despite constructive efforts, Human Rights Watch “has at critical times and in critical theaters thrown its support behind the U.S. government’s agenda, sometimes even serving as a virtual public relations arm of the foreign policy establishment”. They charge HRW “accepts the NATO-friendly view that civilian deaths from high-tech warfare such as in aerial bombings and missile strikes are not prima facie “deliberate” as are face-to-face and low-tech killings of civilians”. They further charge that “HRW facilitates the supreme international crime [wars of aggression]” by “virtue of biases which regularly underrate U.S. and allied human rights violations and inflate those of their targets.[8]

    David Peterson asserts that Human Rights Watch “was training its ‘human rights’ binoculars at the Sandinistas far more earnestly than at the foreign power seeking their overthrow by sponsoring armed guerrilla and terrorist campaigns against them” during the 1980′s in Nicaragua.

  6. http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=700

  7. http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/14804

  8. http://www.counterpunch.org/cook11302006.html

  9. Thanks. I will check these out.

  10. Obama said that Iran should be barred from importing gasoline. Isn´t that the same as HR 362 and SR 580 ??? And that´s virtually a Declaration of War acc. to Congressman Ron Paul.

  11. The bloody Pentagon is aiming at achieving a first-strike capability. The Russians will have no choice but Launch On Warning. The Trident missile engineer Robert C. Aldridge saw it clearly and resigned for that reason: It can´t possibly be for defense. His most famous book is : First Strike! The Pentagon´s Strategy For Nuclear War. Bloody fools in the Pentagon as Brigadier Harbottle stated, because they ALWAYS calculate wrong, it´s NOT POSSIBLE TO GET AWAY WITH A FIRST STRIKE WITHOUT DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES. THEY ARE REALLY BLOODY FOOLS AS BRIGADIER HARBOTTLE SO CORRECTLY STATED. THE US (PENTAGON) aims to achieve a first-strike capability, maybe “only” for Blackmail but that´s something we should NEVER accept.

Leave a Reply