US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces

It sounds like this was mainly being used to report abuses by US allies, ie “US armed IDF forces” according to the article. Obviously there is something more to this than the headline and tone of the piece indicate. For one thing, the law written by Leahy was passed in 2011, but this website went online in 2022, so how can removing the site make it impossible to abide by the law? What was going on between 2011 and 2022 than is different from now?

I’m concerned about human rights, but I’m equally concerned about yellow journalism or coordinated media bias.

From a practical standpoint, this is why Wikileaks matters. Rather than count on the State department to serve that role, we should count on independent journalists like Glen Greenwald and outlets like Wikileaks who are reliably independent.

Agree. I'm tired of having to do research every time I read a news article. If you want me to trust your news articles give me raw unedited sources, because if I don't see any, I don't trust your assessment.

It's hard to say whether the article is lazy or is actually just partisan.

> It sounds like this was mainly being used to report abuses by US allies

The website is for reporting abuses by foreign forces armed with US kit. The US isn't in the habit of arming its enemies, so of course the reports concern allies. That's what the website is for.

It would still be roughly true that someone is trying to make it harder to report abuses or that they’re achieving the same by incompetence, no?

Seems premature to accuse the article if being inaccurate or biased without actually knowing whether it's inaccurate or biased.

I’m concerned about human rights, but I’m equally concerned about yellow journalism or coordinated media bias.

I'm equally concerned about people being paid to push narratives in places like Hacker News. Especially in defense of large organizations.

It’s impossible, actually.

Because it’s none of these things.

i was with you until:

> journalists like Glen Greenwald and outlets like Wikileaks who are reliably independent.

independent from whom?