Amnesty International's Nonpartisan Smokescreen

On Monday, discussing Dick Cheney's remarks about Amnesty International's report referring to Gitmo as the "gulag of our times," I wrote:

Its website claims:

AI is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government or political system, nor does it support or oppose the views of the victims whose rights it seeks to protect. It is concerned solely with the impartial protection of human rights.

I don't buy the "independent of any political ideology" part.

As it turns out, there's proof that AI USA is far from independent of political ideology.

From today's Washington Times:

The top leadership of Amnesty International USA, which unleashed a blistering attack last week on the Bush administration's handling of war detainees, contributed the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Federal Election Commission records show that William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year. Mr. Schulz also has contributed $1,000 to the 2006 campaign of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

Also, Joe W. "Chip" Pitts III, board chairman of Amnesty International USA, gave the maximum $2,000 allowed by federal law to John Kerry for President. Mr. Pitts is a lawyer and entrepreneur who advises the American Civil Liberties Union.

Amnesty USA yesterday told The Washington Times that staff members make policy based on laws governing human rights, pointing out that the organization had criticized some of President Clinton's policies.

"We strive to do everything humanly possible to see that the personal political perspectives of our leadership have no bearing whatsoever upon the nature of our findings and the conduct of our work," a spokesman said.
______________________________

Well, this is embarrassing for Amnesty International. Its claims of being nonpartisan are becoming more and more difficult to accept as valid.

I think the so-called human rights organization should take its place among the 527s.

According to the IRS, "a Section 527 (§527) organization is an organization that is created to receive and disburse funds to influence or attempt to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office."

Yes, Amnesty International USA fits the bill.