Nuance Not Required

There's a tendancy even amongst hardcore Conservatives to regard Amnesty as a bunch of harmless lunatics: doubtless naive and silly, but not actually evil. That's giving them too much credit, consider for example this report flagged up by Mel P, on what happened when a senior member of Al-Q, almost certainly involved in the planning for Sep 11 and other attacks, was detected in Jordan in October 2001:

The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad.'

Now, for sure, Amnesia's intervention was probably not decisive. But, still - here's a key player in international terrorism, caught just a month after his organisation has killed thousands of people, and Amnesia have no qualms after standing shoulder to shoulder with him.

[standard disclaimer follows] Yes, Amnesia will claim they're standing up for the general principles, cite the thin-end-of-the-wedge, blah, blah, blah. The problem with that is not only that these general principles seem to be somewhat ungeneral when the 'victim' is identified as being neither Lefty nor a member of a PC vicitm group, but that Amnesia's own agenda is entirely objectionable.

There's a basic contradiction at the heart of the philosophy Amnesia and its fellow travellers try to push. They insist that far from pushing a political line, they merely seek to support basic, universal rights. Yet, to define rights without reference to context is absurd. It instantly falls foul of the shouting fire in a crowded theatre test - and, indeed, the argument that a terrorist mastermind captured during time of war deserves the same consideration as a suspected shoplifter certainly has more than a whiff of the hoaxes in cinemas. Far from being unarguable truths, Amnesia's 'rights' turn out to be a ragbag of Leftist assertions, their rebranding as fundamental rights being an attempt to close down the debate. What kind of Fascist could oppose human rights ?

Well, actually, most people - otherwise why wouldn't the L3 openly advocate letting terrorist masterminds go free ? Amnesia can't win that debate so they're trying to smuggle their agenda in under a blanket of humbug. Here's the truth: Amnesia helped put a major player in internatonal terrorism back on the street. That's the reality behind the rhectoric. If you give money to Amnesia then you're helping terorists kill innocent people. And, no, Amnesia freaks, blowing up airliners is not a fundamental human right.