Response to the HRW Report

Response to the HRW Report and HRW's Reply by Nimal The most glaring omission is that there is no indication whatsoever as to how alternative explanations for the observations, or in this case interview data, were looked for or ruled out or even if the researcher/author (Jo Becker) is in any way aware that this is extremely important. If someone with a beard dressed in a police uniform commits a robbery, while it is possible that a bearded policeman did it, nevertheless highly plausible and probable alternative explanations also exist. Not long ago it was alleged that Iraq possessed huge stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that posed a real and imminent threat to the world; the accusation was based on hearsay, deliberate misinformation and a good dose of wishful thinking all put together and called ‘intelligence.’ Similarly now, the LTTE and its members are being accused of practising Mass Intimidation and Extortion (MEI) that threatens the Tamil Diaspora (and by implication the Western Countries where they live), by a HRW Report that claims to have researched the matter. But what is this ‘research’ worth? (See http://hrw.org/reports/2006/ltte0306/ for the HRW Report, henceforth referred to as the Report.). Rather strangely one of the informants, Inspector Philip Perry, Metropolitan Police, London, is quoted as saying “...what we end up with is intelligence without solid evidence.” It would seem that, in a way, this matches the tone of the Report: ‘allegations without proper research.’ To read full article.... Response to the HRW Report and HRW's Reply