Amnesty International, a group that states they are a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights; has a rather skewed and disproportionate way of showing it. The recent comment from AI that American detention centers in GITMO were a kin to gulags has set off a firestorm between Amnesty and the Bush Administration causing this reaction from President Bush is regard to AI’s latest finding. On Amnesty International’s website they state the following.
AI’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.
In pursuit of this vision, AI’s mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.
AI is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.
Really? The disproportionate application of comparing the detaining and random acts of violence or torture against
enemies terrorists against the US vs. the state systematic killing of millions in the Russian gulags makes one pause and wonder why such statements are being made. Amnesty International claims that they have no political bias or agenda.
Then comes this little revelation that pretty much disproves anything that AI has stated in that they are some how neutral politically or have no agenda or bias. The top leadership of Amnesty International contributed the maximum amount of campaign funds to the Kerry campaign in his run for the 2004 Presidential election.
The top leadership of Amnesty International USA, which unleashed a blistering attack last week on the Bush administration’s handling of war detainees, contributed the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign.
Federal Election Commission records show that William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry’s campaign last year. Mr. Schulz also has contributed $1,000 to the 2006 campaign of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
Also, Joe W. “Chip” Pitts III, board chairman of Amnesty International USA, gave the maximum $2,000 allowed by federal law to John Kerry for President. Mr. Pitts is a lawyer and entrepreneur who advises the American Civil Liberties Union.
The self proclaimed no political agenda organization that has consistently went after the Bush Administration for its treatment of terrorists as POW’s.
Amnesty International has hit the White House for refusing to treat suspected al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists as prisoners of war subject to the Geneva Conventions; for abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq; and for a list of largely unsubstantiated complaints from detainees at Guantanamo.
For this they would compare abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo that have been investigated and soldiers brought to justice with Russian Gulags. All the while Amnesty International is giving money to Democrats when they claim to be independent of any government nor oppose or support any. REALLY? Would the campaign donations to one specific party show the the support of one party of government? How can Amnesty International claim any of what they supposed stand for, “Amnesty International describes itself as nonpartisan”. ? The response from AI to the campaign money to Kerry,
Amnesty USA yesterday told The Washington Times that staff members make policy based on laws governing human rights, pointing out that the organization had criticized some of President Clinton’s policies.
Criticizing and making campaign donations do not even come close to being the same thing. Maybe Amnesty International would like to turn over all their campaign donations list and which party they went to. Do any of us really believe there was a proportionate amount to both Democrats and Republicans? Once again another institution that claims they are above politics proves to be nothing more than hypocrites.
To further test the hypocrisy comes from The Publius Pundit an experiment for Amnesty International. Why do I think I already know the answer.
Michelle Malkin and Lorie have the Google experiment. As Lorie from PoliPundit writes, “I just can’t help but wonder how much was missing from the stories that were reported in the days before the internet, when there were precious few places to get the rest of the story.” You and me both Lorie.
Update: Amnesty International not only needs to get a life, they appear also in need of a clue. The verbal feud that has ignited between AI and the Bush White House now has Amnesty International now defending their ridiculous and non-perspective comparison of Guantanamo prison as a “gulag.”
“Transparency is the best antidote to misinformation and incorrect facts,” said Khan, who is here to meet with Japanese officials.
The United States holds about 520 men at Guantanamo, where they are denied rights accorded under international law to prisoners of war.
Since when have they been given the prisoner of war status?
Khan rejected a suggestion that Amnesty’s use of the emotive term “gulag” had turned the debate into one over semantics, and distracted attention from the situation in the detention centers.
“What we wanted to do was to send a strong message that … this sort of network of detention centers that has been created as part of this war on terrorism is actually undermining human rights in a dramatic way which can only evoke some of the worst features of human rights scandals of the past,” she said.
Who is the idiot that used the term gulag in the first place? You knew damn well what the reference was to and the severity of the comparison. It is no different than using the term comparing someone to Hitler or to the Holocaust. Now that AI made the comment the want to use an excuse of semantics? The fact that you used the term gulag you lost credibility. Let alone your partisan agenda.
Amnesty International, a Complete Embarrassment