Amnesty International reveals true color

The collective leadership of Amnesty International –in pursuit of a public relations coup– has demonstrated an inexcusable historical blindness. The false frame of moral equivalency compounds their mistake. [Austin Bay Fisking Amnesty, Persevering After Moral Compromise 05jn01]

see also

David B. Rivkin Jr. & Lee A. Casey. Amnesty Unbelievable: The human-rights organization plays anti-American politics. 05Ma27

The group is making hay in website visits and contributions – for now. But as revealed to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, citing the US as running the new gulag was an unfounded accusation. It is this method of publicity seeking that does not contribute to the credibility built up over past decades. It is much easier to destroy one’s credibility than it is to establish it. It is also very hard for people to accept that groups such as Amnesty International can fall to such depths as illustrated in this example.

But this is not an isolated example. It is part of a pattern. And that pattern is being exposed, dissected, discussed, and explained. It may be that distinguished looking people expressing serious sounding plattitudes are trying to rationalize their behavior and excuse revealed misteps but the fact that this emporer has no clothes is being made more clear as time passes.

The AI gulag is one example. Senator Kerry’s SF180 story is becoming another. People seeking answers to serious questions are being frustrated by gamesmanship of the sort made famous by the argument about what the meaning of “is” is. Rather than open records to answer questions, it appears thatKerry opened records to another government agency covered by privacy law that then released selected records to a favorable media outlet. This is like AI complaining about not having access to Gitmo when the ICRC and a whole pile of New York lawyers are providing the most intimate examination of US treatment of detainees. But, if you don’t like the results, then find some other standard to use to measure the research.

But it is much easier to accuse the other side of not accepting reality than it is to measure your own acceptance against objective criteria.

Comments are closed.