Steven Den Beste makes a clear case that Amnesty is selling out its principles over Iraq, and doesn't really care about human rights as its primary concern. His contrast with the ACLU is especially instructive, and compelling.
The strongest case against Amnesty International, however, would have to include this - Amnesty openly admitting the complete abdication of its principles to the public. This report comes from the left-wing Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:
"Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticized the British government for a report on Saddam’s use of torture and summary executions. The two groups usually welcome such documentation of human rights violations, but they criticized the British government for using the report as propaganda to justify an attack on Iraq."In other words, if attention is drawn to human rights in political contexts we don't like, we condemn the raising of human rights issues.
I'm no longer a member of Amnesty... I was, but quit a couple of years ago despite my ongoing support for their mission. If you're a member, I'd encourage you to follow suit. A "human rights" organization that condemns the raising of human rights issues, for any reason, has lost all claim to legitimacy. It is, in fact, a political fraud.
AI is subjugating itself to the hard left core of its membership base, instead of standing up for principles (argument stolen from SDB). They shouldn't be taken seriously.
Amnesty International's agenda has nothing to do with human rights so much as having a politicl agenda. Its reports condemn the West and its client states and ignore the abuses of despots and tyrannies the world over that do not meet its political agenda. I saw in El Salvador, Peru, Iraq, and South Africa. They are a fraud and are probably funded by the GRU.
Peter Warren's nationally syndicated talk radio show in Canada had an AI rep on over the weekend. The moral equivalency was nauseating.
In response to a caller, she claimed the issue of the bombing of Iraqi TV was a war crime because it was defined as a civilian installation by "International war crimes legislation". The implication was that the caller shouldn't be blaming AI, they're just reporting the facts. I guess it's really the fault of whatever parliament voted on that war crimes "legislation".
She closed by telling listeners that the important thing to remember was that war crimes were being committed by both sides (a recurring theme of her discussions).
Peter Warren is generally a pretty sensible host, and I've never picked up on any anti-American sentiments, but he gave this lady a pass to say whatever she wanted completely unchallenged. I guess the AI reputation still carries some weight.