Is Amnesty International still interested in the truth about human rights, or has it become so politicized that we can safely ignore it?
It's a legitimate question, because Amnesty has subverted itself by jumping to conclusions formed by others with a political agenda, rather than getting to the truth. Amnesty used to be at the cutting edge. Now it's out of date, the tail of the dog, fat and lazy and politicized.
As we see in the entry below, Amnesty has been so out of touch on the Blackwater/Nisoor Square controversy that it didn't even know that the federal government is readying to prosecute guards for the September 16, 2007 incident.
Further into Amnesty's Nisoor anniversary "report," we find that the foundation really wants to put Blackwater out of business - an agenda set by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Cal.) and moonbat writer Jeremy Scahill of The Nation.
Here's what Amnesty says in its "report": "Amnesty International USA has demanded that the State Department suspend contracts with contractors like Blackwater until it is clear that proper vetting mechanisms are in place to prevent further abuses."
Does Amnesty even know what the vetting mechanisms are? It gives no indication (they are amply documented among the more than 350 entries on this blog).
Waxman and Scahill can't seem to get much support from among fellow Blackwater critics. Scahill pointedly asked Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) if they would endorse pulling Blackwater's contracts, and both said no. Both said Blackwater should compete for contracts. Even Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has privately said, as US News and World Report revealed, that he thinks Blackwater is "getting a bad rap."
But in Amnesty's case, it shouldn't matter what the politicians say. The organization made a good name for itself by sticking to facts and not jumping to politicized conclusions. That was the old Amnesty International. The new Amnesty isn't worth listening to any more.
(Graphic courtesy of thedissidentfrogman.com)