Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (46762)	5/5/2002 1:27:33 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

This is interesting. I put a few phrases from the article you posted into google and found the original urgent action bulletin from AI. I wonder if the woman just wanted to stay in this country. And, she was a volunteer. So another motive, while I'm speculating, might be (assuming the account was correct and her story is bogus) that she might want a staff position (ie a paid one), which, if she couldn't return to Guatemala because of her brave work as a volunteer, AIUSA might be moved to give give her, or feel obligated to, she being a hero and all. It's really a terrible thing if she fooled them. rtfcam.org It says "...AI has noted a sharp increase in abuses directed against Guatemalan human rights activists and others involved in or reporting on these anti-impunity initiatives. Many human rights defenders have received death threats and been subjected to acts of intimidation..." and also says that "Furthermore, AI is aware of at least one additional case during the past year in which individuals associated with important Guatemalan human rights cases reported threats in the United States," so given that context, and her purported good work in the past, I can see why they would be predisposed to believe her. Another thought: the second para above was issued, presumably as a press release and web page addition, on April 1. I see that the article is dated May 4 and the "attack" happened on March 10. This suggests to me that AI had heard from the police that they didn't believe the story and had also heard that a reporter from the Seattle Times was about to do a story, and went into defensive mode, publicizing that there was "at least one additional case during the past year in which individuals associated with important Guatemalan human rights cases reported threats in the United States." But of course that doesn't mean anything at all, except that they are roughly equating a threat with a claimed attack. Which doesn't look good to me in terms of establishing credibility. It's a bad situation for AI. They have this volunteer, and if they appear to throw her to the wolves, what effect does that have on the thousands of volunteers on whom they depend? But if they don't, they throw away their hard-won credibility. Not good.