Former Gitmo detainee Moazzam Begg is a committed jihadist and unabashed supporter of the Taliban. (See this Weekly Standard essay by Tom Joscelyn, which collects other Begg links.) In the fashion of CAIR — a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood formed to support its causes, such as Hamas, in the camouflage of a "civil rights" organization — Begg shrewdly realized he could win fawning admirers and allies on the Left by posing as a human rights activist. So he formed a group in Britain, Cageprisoners, which claims to be a civil rights organization whle promoting the Islamist agenda — and aligning with such other anti-American jihadist terrorists as would-be Christmas bomber Umar Abdulmutallab and Anwar al-Awlaki (an imam to some of the 9/11 hijackers and an inspiration to both Abdulmutallab and Fort Hood mass-murderer Nidal Hasan).
As Tom details, the disconnect between terror- and sharia-promotion, on the one hand, and civil rights, on the other, has weighed heavily on some authentic civil rights activists. After complaining for a couple of years to no avail about Amnesty International's support for Begg, Gita Sahgal (head of AI's "gender unit") finally went public, pointing out that “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.” For her trouble, Sahgal was reprimanded by AI and ultimately suspended. AI's treatment of Sahgal prompted a "Global Petition" by some international human rights supporters, protesting AI's action (in conjunction with all the usual grousing about the evils of the United States).
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 in America's self-defense are worthy of condemnation.
This is actually good news. It shows exactly how fascist and Orwellian most of these Leftist NGO's and 'human rights organizations' have become. At least they're out in the open as the delusional hypocrites they are.
Want to bet that Amnesty International's notion of self-defense doesn't include Christians and Jews under attack by Muslims? I guarantee you it doesn't.
So it means they are irrelevant. Like the Nobel "Peace Prize." Thanks for outing them...
ReplyDeleteTalk about going viral on the net. This topic is getting plenty of play. Read mine:
ReplyDeletehttp://libertysspirit.blogspot.com
Great minds think alike!
The last sentence here says it all. I suspect this is why they say nothing when Iranian leaders acting with the express approval of the Iranian government chant "death to America." After all, here we have, in Iran, one of the most powerful nations on earth who is backed up by Russia and China, the two most powerful nations on earth calling for complete genocide of an entire nation, the United States.
ReplyDeleteWhile the United States cannot be considered a Christian nation by any stretch of the imagination, it does have a large number of Christians living in it. As such, according to these people the United States cannot be afforded the same rights of self-defense that other nations have. We already know the contempt these people hold for Israel.
My suggestion would be treat Amnesty International and others of their ilk the same way an enemy combatant would be treated and destroy them. One should not be allowed to actively consort with our enemies and be allowed to get away with it.