Senior Amnesty International official accuses it of putting rights of jihadis before those of their victims
Not surprising at all, given the Leftist/Jihadist alliance that manifests itself in so many areas. “Amnesty International is ‘damaged’ by Taliban link,” by Richard Kerbaj for The Sunday Times, February 7 (thanks to Sr. Soph):
A SENIOR official at Amnesty International has accused the charity of putting the human rights of Al-Qaeda terror suspects above those of their victims.Gita Sahgal, head of the gender unit at Amnesty’s international secretariat, believes that collaborating with Moazzam Begg, a former British inmate at Guantanamo Bay, “fundamentally damages” the organisation’s reputation.
In an email sent to Amnesty’s top bosses, she suggests the charity has mistakenly allied itself with Begg and his “jihadi” group, Cageprisoners, out of fear of being branded racist and Islamophobic.
Sahgal describes Begg as “Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban”. He has championed the rights of jailed Al-Qaeda members and hate preachers, including Anwar al-Awlaki, the alleged spiritual mentor of the Christmas Day Detroit plane bomber.
Amnesty’s work with Cageprisoners took it to Downing Street last month to demand the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Begg has also embarked on a European tour, hosted by Amnesty, urging countries to offer safe haven to Guantanamo detainees. This is despite concerns about former inmates returning to terrorism.
Sahgal, who has researched religious fundamentalism for 20 years, has decided to go public because she feels Amnesty has ignored her warnings for the past two years about the involvement of Begg in the charity’s Counter Terror With Justice campaign.
“I believe the campaign fundamentally damages Amnesty International’s integrity and, more importantly, constitutes a threat to human rights,” Sahgal wrote in an email to the organisation’s leaders on January 30. “To be appearing on platforms with Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender, is a gross error of judgment.”…
Amnesty International has always had a soft spot in its heart for terrorists, beginning with the McBrides' agitation on the behalf of Irish terrorists in British prisons.
What nonsense is this? A top Amnesty person thinks that the tortured Begg is not actually a nice enough person, with sufficiently correct political views and sufficiently careful of his new friends, for Amnesty to align themselves with.
I happen to agree with Sahgal, Amnesty should record Begg's statement about his torture and then cut him loose. The rest of the story is fundamentally non-newsworthy.
Look at it this way – Gitmo radicalised Begg more thoroughly than some at Amnesty realised. Big deal. The Hanoi Hilton radicalised McCain more thoroughly against the Vietnamese than he was before – so? Saghal's logic is that, if McCain did slam the Vietnamese after his release, it diminished his testimony and human rights group should thenceforward be careful. Saghal is right but Amnesty's core role is not affected.