Amnesty blames Ukraine for Alleged Russian bombardment

To Agnès.Callamard
Amnesty International Secretary-General
August 10, 2022

Dear Ms. Callamard and whom it may concern:

I am writing to express my concern about a purported Amnesty Press release I learned about from the New York Times. Here are the links:

An Amnesty International assessment that Ukraine ‘put civilians in harm’s way’ stirs outrage.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/07/world/europe/amnesty-international-ukraine-russia-war-crimes.html

Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/

My concern about this communication is profound.

Even granted this is one message in a larger corpus of Amnesty communications all of which I’ve not read, obvs, nevertheless there are a number of very problematic issues which stand out on first inspection.

First is the issue of tone.

This press release reads like Russian propaganda.

““We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General.”

It uses a straw man argument, ““Being in a defensive position does not exempt the Ukrainian military from respecting international humanitarian law.””

Well ofc that’s true, but you don’t actually cite any instance of anyone saying or asserting that. Thus it is a straw man argument.

What the straw man argument elides is that there is a clear distinction in customary law between aggressive war and self-defense.

The judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg states, “War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Wars of aggression are recognized as crimes under customary law in the UN Charter Articles 1, 2, 33, and 39; in the Rio Pact; in UN General Assembly Res 3314, in the Rome Statute of the ICC; and elsewhere.

Your framing omits this important fact. You aren’t even even-handed. Your condemnation is weighted in scope and particulars against Ukraine, and thus one might reasonably infer, relatively favorable toward Russia’s perspective.

I find it problematic in the extreme that your April to July investigation of alleged Russian strikes by Russia against Ukrainian protected sites and persons results in this strange press release –condemning Ukraine! Seriously what???

Russia and Ukraine have obligations under customary law of proportionality; respecting cultural sites and hospitals; avoiding aerial bombardment of civilian areas; respecting the rights of prisoners of war and interned civilians; refraining from theft, rape, torture, not punishing people merely for fighting to defend their homeland, and eschewing extrajudicial punishments and executions.

Article 51(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Convention provides that civilians shall enjoy protection against the dangers arising from military operations “unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”.

If Russian troops are on the doorstep of Irpan or Bucha or Hostomel what is Ukraine to do, according to Amnesty?

Not defend the town or the people in it and leave them to the tender mercies of the Russians? is that your Amnesty’s idea of “protecting the rights of Ukrainian civilians?” Really? Think this through a bit.

You repeatedly state in this release that “international law” says this, that, and the other thing as though this is a settled and codified body of law. We both know that’s not true. What you do not do is to cite any particular, specific, actual customary law, precedent, resolution, or rule of war at issue.

You use testimonials in lieu of sufficient documented statistics, maps, and dates and locations and particulars. This is an informal logical fallacy, incomplete induction or “arguing from the specific to the general.”

You use weasel words like, “This did not appear to have happened in the cases examined by Amnesty International.” Sorry, but this is a very weak inference on which to end a section. As Carl Sagan famously said, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Your one-sided and manipulative condemnation of Ukraine defending itself gives aid and comfort to Russia and deprecates Ukrainian forces and civilians for defending themselves, their homes, and the civilian population, from Russia’s war of aggression.

When Ukrainians civilians and military defend their homes, and Russians attack them with largely disproportionate, indiscriminate, unguided aerial bombardment, rockets and artillery, is it the Ukrainians who are at fault for defending their homes and families?

Are you sure?

How can you? Just, how can you make such one-sided, misleading, incomplete, erroneous, gaslighting, and classic victim-blaming statements?

Why don’t you send your “extended press release” to your colleague, Maksym Butkevych. Perhaps he’ll enjoy reading your victim-blaming, pro-Russian statement in the Russian concentration camp where you have abandoned him. Please, give him something nice to read between interrogation and re-education sessions. Not this.

The final and greatest concern I have, Ms. Callamard, is for you. Your quoted and published statements are notably lacking in humanity, empathy and caring.

Is this a game to you? All about Amnesty putting out trolling offensive statements to stoke controversy and build buzz for your brand?

When you make statements like these apparently justifying and providing cover for the illegal Russian aggressive war and alleged Russian war crimes, by blaming alleged Russian bombardment of protected buildings, sites, and persons on those targeted, those words should burn your heart and taste like iron on your tongue.

What have you become?

very sincerely and with good will,

Henry Edward Hardy
former Senior Systems Administrator
Tufts University*

*institutional affiliation for identification purposes only

Henry Edward Hardy

Letter to Disney regarding Pablo Hidalgo’s trolling and bullying Star Wars fans such as Star Wars Theory

I am dismayed at the disrespectful conduct of Pablo Hidalgo toward Star Wars Theory and other fans. Fans who cried when they saw Luke Skywalker serene and empowered by the force, gentle and confident, the embodiment of indomitable will and undying hope. I am a retired senior systems administrator at Tufts University. I was 18 when I walked 5 miles to the theater to see Star Wars. Luke Skywalker represented the hope which is the spirit of unspiritual conditions. We hated the three sequels because they mocked and deconstructed the symbols of hope and good, Luke Skywalker became a bitter alcoholic jerk. Han and Leia were a failed Senator and a failed smuggler who had a failed marriage and raised a monster, the next Darth Vader wanna-be. That hurts so many people. There was a lack of attention to continuity and world building, to the extent that the main villain, Snoke, and Hero, Rey, had no set origin story and no plotted arc.

The Mandalorian finale was glorious. Tightly plotted, original, using fanservice where it was earned through plot and worldbuilding and characterization. And when Luke Skywalker appeared, I cried. And when lil Baby Grogu had to say goodbye and go to Space College, I cried.

I’ve been isolated alone at home for nine months. The only way to share those happy emotions was via youtube. And 30,000 people watching with Star Wars Theory in real time knew he didn’t prewatch and then fake-emote. What a terrible thread for Pablo Hidalgo to endorse.

It might pass but Mr. Hidalgo has previously trolled fans with hurtful, racist, and sexist tropes.

Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni miraculously healed the divisions created by the failures of the last three Skywalker movies and Solo. There was universal love and acceptance of the Disney takeover now following the glorious Disney Mandalorian finale. For a few days until Mr. Hidalgo decided to blow that up with a gratuitous attack on one of Star Wars best known and most reasonable and best respected fans.

In one sentence, Hidalgo took a billion dollars off the value of the Star Wars franchise.

Are you okay with that?

I’m not calling for Mr. Hidalgo to be fired. But he should not be dealing with the public as a public face of the Star Wars story, ever again.

Is it time for everyone to cancel Disney plus?

I’m still on the fence.

A non-apology apology from Mr. Hidalgo giving a disingenuous remark that this comment was meant to mean the exact opposite of what he plainly said is not an apology. It’s the opposite.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your reply.

Copyright © 2020 Henry Edward Hardy

Variety: How a Lucasfilm Exec’s Tweet Reopened the Wounds of ‘The Last Jedi’ Lucasfilm’s Pablo Hidalgo apologized for tweeting “emotions are not to be shared” in a thread about a Star Wars fan’s emotional reaction to “The Mandalorian.” But the damage had been done. By Adam B. Vary

Letter to Liz Warren’s campaign:

Letter to Liz Warren’s campaign:

Liz is my Senator and I started out supporting her. Now I am leaning Bernie or frankly, any Democrat but Liz. My disenchantment started with Liz wiffle-waffling over Medicaid for All. Is she for it or against it now? Having some third system for a transition as Liz has reportedly proposed is a trillion dollar opportunity cost which can and should be avoided.

Why can Liz not say anything nice about socialism? I am a union member and DSA member, and Liz’s program is a socialist program. Why can she not acknowledge democratic socialists such as Eugene Debs, Upton Sinclair, Michael Harrington, Bayard Rustin and Victor Berger? We don’t want ‘Bernie Lite’ and we definitely do not want another entitled, neoliberal, rightist candidate like Hillary Clinton. I’m so disappointed, and looking forward to a progressive challenger from the real Democratic party of the people when Liz runs again for Senate.

I was a credentialed voting state delegate to the 2018 Democratic convention. I welcome your response.

best,

Henry Edward Hardy

Copyright © 2020 Henry Edward Hardy

Rise of Skywalker is a Film Designed by a Committee

Rise of Skywalker is a Film Designed by a Committee, and when we say that we mean not only an indictment of how the Lucasfilm and Disney execs worked over the story, but the obvious and huge retcons of the story line not only from eps 7 and 8, but also the original trilogy.

In the original trilogy, we cared about the characters. We were curious and even inspired by the force and samurai wizard mentors such as Obi-Wan and Yoda dishing out ice cream koans like [The Force is] “an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together” and “Do. Or do not. There is no try.”

Episodes 7, 8 and 9 eschew the samurai warrior/wizard mentor stuff and goes for an origin story of the protagonist Rey. But after three movies, we still know almost nothing about her, and she knows almost nothing about her origins. Why is it that so many strong female characters are devalued by spending their entire story line angsting about “who am I?” I mean does John Wick or James Bond get all emo about their identity?

Special effects are wonderful, of course. The script is just miserable. Lawrence Kasdan this is not. Acting is serviceable. Adam Driver still seems weirdly miscast to me as an evil Sith wannabe overlord. He comes off more like a creepy abusive satanist boyfriend. Daisy Ridley gives a solid performance as Rey. She really gives it her all physically and emotionally. Her whole fierce elf aesthetic made me think of Elfquest.

The music was not John Williams. It was bombastic, overly dramatic and had only sound and fury, nothing really memorable or lyrical.

One of the things which made Fury Road a great movie was how the battles were set up, you could tell exactly who was where doing what. Ep 9 is the opposite, it’s a huge mess.

Trying not to be too spoilerish but there are also big issues in terms of even the internal logic of the third trilogy leading to a problematic and improbable deus ex machina.

The best I can say about ep 9 is that it re-retconned a lot of the scurrilous and disrespectful retcons in ep 8. But continuity is out the window totally. And for folks who enjoy the Old Republic and the legends continuities these three last Star Wars films gave us nothing and disrespected or devalued a lot of what we thought we knew.

Skywalker is a well-made movie in terms of production values. As a story, it is very unfullfilling as a way of ending the Skywalker series and fails in theme, plot, characterization, and continuity.

2 of 4 stars.

Copyright © 2019 Henry Edward Hardy

How Star Wars 7,8,9 would go if I was the writer and producer

I’m so disappointed with the deconstructive and destructive nature and intent of the new Star Wars movies. Leia and Han’s storybook marriage disintigrated and their son turned into an emo psycho-killer cultist. Everything Luke believed when he was a young Jedi knight was wrong, and now he is a broken old man who has severed his connection with the force and sunk his starfighter in the sea.

What a load of horse hockey.

So here’s how it would go if it were up to me.

The crawl at the beginning of ep 7:

STAR WARS
Episode 7
A New Menace

The NEW REPUBLIC has collapsed into feuding republics and principalities. The RESISTANCE was disarmed. Those who resisted are hunted as terrorists and killed or imprisoned. HAN and LEIA SOLO run a shipyard and cantina at Mos Eisley on Tatooine.

Demobilized STORM TROOPERS form the basis of a political movement called the Home Soil Movement. Imperial Remnants threaten the Republic from beyond known space. And where are the Jedi? Vanished, gone and almost forgotten.

LUKE SKYWALKER disappeared ten years ago and his whereabouts are unknown.

Prologue

Luke and Leia at the cantina… smuggling/resistance business… an unexpected guest. It is Chewbacca, taking some leave before returning to Kasssyk to take up a post as a General in the militia.

Chewbacca is concerned. His scouts report that dissident Storm Troopers have found a new line of credit with the banking clan and have been seen on Kamino, home of the cloners who made the Clone troopers during the Clone Wars. Over dinner they fall to discussing old times.

After the destruction of the second Death Star and fall of Emperor Palpatine, much of the fleet was demobilized. However a sizable fleet of several hundred ships under Admiral Thrawn departed for the Unknown Regions.

What happened to Luke? After the war he was hailed as a hero but refused all honors, retiring to Tatooine, living in Obi-Wan’s old campsites and becoming much of a hermit. Then one day he was gone, just gone. And Leia could no longer sense him in the force.

PS I wrote this Dec 30, 2017, but I am posting it now in contrast to the actual progress and conclusion of the third Star Wars trilogy.

Copyright © 2019 Henry Edward Hardy