HRW's defence is that Marc is not a Nazi and there's nothing wrong with his hobby. So, according to Human Rights Watch, there's nothing wrong with that picture?! However, the issue is not so much about Marc Garlasco, however disturbing his hobby is. The issue is with Human Rights Watch; as EoZ says, "HRW's poster boy for human rights research nurses a serious obsession with, and fascination for, the worst human rights abusers in history."
NGO Monitor goes into more detail.
On top of that there is the fact that this HRW investigator, who clearly anyway has an agenda against Israel and the Jewish State's right to defend itself against those who aim to destroy it, is obsessed with souvenirs of Nazis, the very people who tried to kill all the Jews, with the Holocaust resulting in the establishment of the State of Israel.
And HRW don't seem to think there's anything wrong with that.
And that's not all. The brilliant EoZ also links to a quote from Garlasco that demonstrates his unsurprising hypocrisy when it comes to Israel, as he says on the US army in Afghanistan:
"I don't think people really appreciate the gymnastics that the US military goes through in order to make sure that they're not killing civilians... the Taliban are violating international law... You have the Taliban shielding in people's homes. And you have this small number of troops on the ground. And sometimes the only thing they can do is drop bombs.”Daled Amos, the blog linked from EoZ, observes "Odd that the criteria that Garlasco so easily applies to the US, he refuses to use what talking about Israel."
That's still not all. Amos quotes, from an interview with Garlasco, talking about when he worked in the Pentagon for the US army:
"Garlasco says, before the invasion of Iraq, he recommended 50 air strikes aimed at high-value targets - Iraqi officials. But he says none of the targets on the list were actually killed. Instead, he says, 'a couple of hundred civilians at least' were killed."EoZ puts it perfectly: "Perhaps we should ask HRW to investigate whether Garlasco should be charged with war crimes."