When will more people who are vocal about human and civil rights, speak in a way that is morally relevant to others?

When discussing a position paper for college, or for a think tank, or for some diplomatic forum, I can understand the need for careful and analytical language that is more technical and clear than morally indignant.

But when speaking as a 'talking head', when writing an editorial, when responding to a 'moral' claim from the right, when defending Democratic positions, there are definitely times when one can take a moral high road, and even condemn great evils.

Was slavery a great evil, or just ignorance? What about segregation? Race-mixing laws? Apartheid?

The Holocaust, was it an evil? Or was it too banal to even warrant Hannah Arendt's indictment?

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, catalog some very serious human and civil rights violations. People are imprisoned, tortured, killed, mutilated, raped, in the name of religion or ideology or expediency.

To see people avoid moral language against torture, rape, pedophilia, and massacres, disturbs me. What kind of moral jellyfish can't use the term 'Evil' for such things. I feel free to use the term 'evil' to describe Muslim riots over cartoons. I won't be lectured by moral jellyfish on it.

Isn't it odd that people who hesitate to use the term 'Evil' to describe such horrors, use moral tones against the very people who do have the clarity to voice such moral condemnation in clear unequivocal language?