The Dark Side Of Amnesty International

(  Amnesty International seems to promote fairness and liberty. Their motto is

Working to protect human rights.

However, when you look at their actions there seems to be a bit of hypocrisy. Human rights do not apply to world leaders they don’t like. Good national leaders sometimes have to make difficult decisions and administer the law of the land.

What may have started out as a good idea seems to just be a platform to attack people that don’t agree with “Amnesty”.  Recently, they called for the arrest of the Bush family as they travel Africa.  How can a group outside of the justice system of a sovereign nation decide what is right or wrong?

There is definitely abuse in our world.  There needs to be a voice that is compassionate and working to end the horrible acts towards our fellow man in the world.   However,  Amnesty International approaches the Greenpeace style of pushing your way over listening to others and advocating violence rather than resolving issues though dialog and due process.

3 Replies to “The Dark Side Of Amnesty International”

  1. The blatant lack of understanding in this article is offensive. Calling on the justice system to act is no way “deciding what is right or wrong”, it is stating an opinion publicly and asking the system to do its job. Please sight examples of when Amnesty has advocated violence, as that is a serious accusation to make without evidence.

    1. Dear Ted,

      If you are offended by something, it is concerning as it seems you may not be open to discussion.

      The blogging team is all about discussion and challenging each other to think past the newscaster’s commentary. In response to Amnesty, the writer of this article already stated that the approach of Amnesty here in attacking a world leader is the evidence that they are drawing point out.

      Thanks for stopping by!

  2. I agree with Bright Citizen on this one. Amnesty International doesn’t have the right – nor does it have the credentials for that matter – to claim for itself the moral high ground in order to lecture political leaders on how to be good. Like all successful big business ventures – e.g. contemporary politics – the one overriding concern of its CEOs is how to make the most money. Inevitably, when your number one priority is money soon or later you’re going to make compromises and forfeit your integrity. In business you can’t afford to be ethical in principle unless you want to be fired. In its 2013 report on the Syrian conflict Amnesty blamed the Syrian government for carrying out air bombing raids on civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals. As it turns out the report was bogus as it was based not on hard evidence but instead on eye-witness accounts of opposition US/EU backed terrorists that have recently caught the attention of mainstream media for being the same guys who carried out the gruesome execution style murders of western journalists over the border in Iraq. In my opinion Amnesty International is far from being what it purpots to be.

Comments are closed.