Chomsky, for example, when questioned on this point with regard to other issues has said, consistently, that a focus upon those crimes directly attributable to American action or influence is the proper duty of citizens since we have a better chance of actually having some positive effect by influencing our government to stop providing aid, weapons, advice, etc.
The classic Chomsky example to explain this is the difference between the massacres in Cambodia and East Timor. In the first case, the US was not the responsible party, in the other it clearly was. Protesting against Pol Pot therefore, would be a laudable gesture (insisting upon international action even more so) but not as effective as applying pressure upon the US Congress to cut-off aid to the Indonesian military.
The moral value of speaking out about outrages that are unrelated to US foreign policy (or, its kissing cousin, American corporate involvement) is undeniable.
But since the murderous leaders of such nations are completely unaccountable to us, we cannot expect them to listen. Why should a dictator who's not receiving aid from Washington care that Americans are marching, organizing petitions or writing outraged essays?
This has been criticized repeatedly as cynical and cold hearted (I'm sure several folks on the list see it that way) but it cannot be easily dismissed.
The underlying argument Chomsky offers in defense is that "we are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions", a responsibility that extends beyond our 'leaders' to each of us who don't do everything we can to work against the crimes our taxed dollars and quiet acceptance often support.
This always raises a ruckus on the left between those who want to chase after every dark shadow and those who believe in some sort of coherent focus.
There are compelling arguments from both camps.
DRM
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com