What Amnesty International Bias?
They claim to be a non-partisan group, but the top officials of Amnesty International donated the maximum personal amount to the campaign of John F. Kerry: Amnesty leadership aided Kerry. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)
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.
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.
“We strive to do everything humanly possible to see that the personal political perspectives of our leadership have no bearing whatsoever upon the nature of our findings and the conduct of our work,” a spokesman said.
Amnesty International describes itself as nonpartisan. Disclosure of the leadership’s political leanings came yesterday as the Bush administration continued to lash out at the human rights group for remarks last week by Irene Khan, Amnesty’s secretary-general.
Mrs. Khan compared the U.S. detention center at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where more than 500 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members are held, to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin’s “gulag” prison system.
At the same time, Mr. Schulz issued a statement calling Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top administration officials “architects of torture.” Mr. Schulz suggested that other countries could file war-crime charges against the top officials and arrest them.
And the third rail of bias that no one in mainstream media will touch: Amnesty secretary general Irene Khan is a Muslim. Did her religion influence her outrageously intemperate remarks about the Muslim detainees at Guantanamo Bay?
UPDATE at 6/2/05 4:03:48 pm:
Sure enough, the mere asking of this question touches off knee-jerk cries of bigotry, from a commenter (who was banned from LGF) at Roger L. Simon’s site: Something Amnesty International will not comment about…