Amnesty International condones jihad?

People used to accuse Amnesty International of being pro-jihadi for their attacks on the interrogation and detention policies of the US regarding captured terrorists, which most passed off as hyperbole.  As it turns out, though, AI appears pretty comfortable partnering with jihadis, as long as AI considers them “defensive” terrorists:

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. …

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.

Awlaki also counseled Major Nidal Hasan, the man who went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood last fall, killing 14 people.  Awlaki is also still considered a suspect in the 9/11 attack plot.  He escaped the US before law enforcement could catch up to him, but the 9/11 Commission publicly suggested that Awlaki played an operational role in the conspiracy, having had contact with several of the plotters before the attacks.

Sahgal tried warning AI about allying with the Taliban in an e-mail in January, but was ignored:

“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.” …

“As a former Guantanamo detainee it was legitimate to hear his experiences, but as a supporter of the Taliban it was absolutely wrong to legitimise him as a partner,” Sahgal told The Sunday Times.

Let’s consider the ramifications of an AI-Taliban partnership on its face.  What exactly are the Taliban’s methods of detention, interrogation, and adjudication?  The Taliban conducts kidnappings for ransom, beheads its victims when ransoms don’t get paid, and routinely torture people in villages they control for violations of their radically strict religious code.  Somehow, this appeals to AI’s sensibilities while Gitmo remains their bete noir?

This reveals AI as little more than haters of Western civilization, willing to ally themselves to the worst abusers of human rights on the planet just to score a few points against the US and the West.  Andy McCarthy is outraged over AI’s defense of their new bestest buddies:

In response to the petition, AI Secretary-General Claudio Cordone has issued a letter in vigorous defense of AI’s collaboration with Begg and Cageprisoners. Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism has the story, here. In the letter, Cordone states AI’s position outright: advocacy of “jihad in self defence” is not antithetical to human rights. That Islamists reserve unto themselves the right to determine when Islam is, as they put it, “under siege,” and when, therefore, forcible jihad is justified, is plainly of no concern — only actions America’s self-defense are worthy of condemnation.

This has long been obvious when it comes to such Leftist bastions as AI and Human Rights Watch. AI has now made the obvious explicit.

AI chose beheaders, torturers, oppressers, and kidnappers as their partners.  Does anything more really need to be said?

Blowback