Looks like they didn't read their own charter too closely.

 

Amnesty International's Web site states it is "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. It does not support or oppose any government."

 

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050602-120456-1031r.htm

Looks like they didn't read their own charter too closely.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050602-120456-1031r.htm

 

 

:puke

Two individuals, Schultz and Pitts, gave donations to those campaigns. Not Amnesty.

Edited June 2, 200520 yr by FlaSoxxJim

Two individuals, Schultz and Pitts, gave donations to those campaigns.  Not Amnesty.

Of course you would feel the same way if the tables were turned, right?

Of course you would feel the same way if the tables were turned, right?

 

I would. I wouldn't have a say in the matter. Most people are allowed to have personal political party affiliations even if the entity they work for cannot, unless clearly stipulated otherwise.

 

That said, how hard is it to guess at the political leanings of groups like Amnesty or the ACLU – or the NRA – for that matter? Is it really a big shock that ranking members of an organization whose goal is to protect the human rights of prisoners don't support in their role as private citizens/voters/donors a president who considers the Geneva protocols antiquated and a nuisance?

I would.  I wouldn't have a say in the matter. Most people are allowed to have personal political party affiliations even if the entity they work for cannot, unless clearly stipulated otherwise.

 

That said, how hard is it to guess at the political leanings of groups like Amnesty or the ACLU – or the NRA – for that matter?  Is it really a big shock that ranking members of an organization whose goal is to protect the human rights of prisoners don't support in their role as private citizens/voters/donors a president who considers the Geneva protocols antiquated and a nuisance?

Just checking.

I think Amnesty has done amazing things during its existence, and prisoner rights' abuses worldwide would be orders of magnitudes worse than they are now without groups like them, Red Cross, etc., monitoring conditions. I don't believe any of their number are any less prone to err than anyone else, but I don't see that anything here could be construed as likely to change the focus of the organization.

 

It's refreshing to see people walk it like they talk it. At least you know where people stand on things. Would anybody be surprised to learn that many of the Board of Directors of the NRA made private donations to the Bush campaign? Private money and personal beliefs/causes = no conflict as far as I'm concerned. And the $2,000 limit on personal donations is a reasonable safeguard against a few extremely wealthy individuals buying candidates.

I think Amnesty has done amazing things during its existence, and prisoner rights' abuses worldwide would be orders of magnitudes worse than they are now without groups like them, Red Cross, etc., monitoring conditions.  I don't believe any of their number are any less prone to err than anyone else, but I don't see that anything here could be construed as likely to change the focus of the organization.

 

It's refreshing to see people walk it like they talk it.  At least you know where people stand on things.  Would anybody be surprised to learn that many of the Board of Directors of the NRA made private donations to the Bush campaign?  Private money and personal beliefs/causes = no conflict as far as I'm concerned.  And the $2,000 limit on personal donations is a reasonable safeguard against a few extremely wealthy individuals buying candidates.

 

That's twice you have sighted the NRA now. My question is does the NRA has nuetrality in its charter anywhere?

 

If you as an individual believe in something enough, that you are willing to donate money to it, are you really nuetral enough to not let it influence your treatment of the opposite? Take the Supreme Court. Do you feel comfortable with the ability of Souder to stay nuetral while hanging out with Dick Cheney on the side in his private life? I think it crosses an ethical line, and it makes anything that they publish a lot more suspect. If they were a liberal or conservative organization in their charter and gave to those organizations that is one thing, but when your leadership has stock in one group over another, yet is trying to tell me they aren't against or supporting any government, it rings hollow with me.

I can't answer the NRA question, because I cannot find their charter. In their stated mission to protect the 2nd ammendment the best way tehy see fit, however, I don't see anything that would suggest they are at least nominally anything but party-neutral. In reality, since there's not a whole lot of gun control activity originating from the right, it can be assumed that is the direction most of the membership leans.

 

Amnesty can truthfully state they are government-neutral while still decrying the policies of a government. Of course they are going to as an entity take a stand against the ongoing prisoner rights violations alleged in US detention centers. They can't use the organizations funds to try to topple the administration or anything, but the private citizens that form the entity can work within their legal means (as we all can) to try to elect the person who they feel best reflects their values.

An admitted non-neutral Washington Times accusing a group of not being neutral.

 

It was founded in 1982 as a conservative alternative to the Washington Post by members of the controversial Unification Church

 

Paul Weyrich, a co-founder of the Moral Majority conservative Christian political action committee, praises the Washington Times as an "antidote" to its "liberal competitor,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times

 

The newsmagazine Insight (more fully, Insight on the News), is published by The Washington Times Corporation.

 

It was noted for providing additional funding to Paula Jones for her sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill Clinton, allowing the suit to continue after her own funding ran out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insight_magazine

Edited June 2, 200520 yr by KipWellsFan

That's twice you have sighted the NRA now.  My question is does the NRA has nuetrality in its charter anywhere? 

 

If you as an individual believe in something enough, that you are willing to donate money to it, are you really nuetral enough to not let it influence your treatment of the opposite?  Take the Supreme Court.  Do you feel comfortable with the ability of Souder  to stay nuetral while hanging out with Dick Cheney on the side in his private life?  I think it crosses an ethical line, and it makes anything that they publish a lot more suspect.  If they were a liberal or conservative organization in their charter and gave to those organizations that is one thing, but when your leadership has stock in one group over another, yet is trying to tell me they aren't against or supporting any government, it rings hollow with me.

 

I think you mean Cheney's hunting buddy Scalia, not Souder.

IIRC, Rummy was using Amnesty reports in 2003 to justify the invasion of Iraq.

 

If the Bushistas want to defame Amnesty as incorrect and therefore shouldn't be listened to as legitimate, then doesn't it kind of serve to shoot themselves in the foot as well?

I can't answer the NRA question, because I cannot find their charter.  In their stated mission to protect the 2nd ammendment the best way tehy see fit, however, I don't see anything that would suggest they are at least nominally anything but party-neutral.  In reality, since there's not a whole lot of gun control activity originating from the right, it can be assumed that is the direction most of the membership leans.

 

The NRA currently is organized under U.S. Law as the NRA Foundation, a tax-exempt 501 © organization.

 

There are very specific limits on what political actions can be undertaken by 501 c groups. They are allowed to be advocacy groups, and their members are allowed to advocate positions and encourage others within the group to support certain positions.

 

However, the group itself is not allowed to spend a significant amount of its funds or effort specifically on lobbying efforts.

 

From the IRS Site:

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501©(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501©(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

 

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure.  It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

 

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

 

I believe Amnesty International is also registered in the U.S. as sa 501c organization, and hence is subject to the exact same lobbying and fundraising rules as the NRA.

Thank you, Balta, for clarification.

I think you mean Cheney's hunting buddy Scalia, not Souder.

 

Yes Scalia, not Souder. Thank you.

An admitted non-neutral Washington Times accusing a group of not being neutral. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insight_magazine

 

All that doesn't matter! Isn't that great. It doesn't matter who you are paying off, it doesn't affect your nuetrality.

Yes Scalia, not Souder.  Thank you.

Well then, what a gawddamn minute... I thought you meant he was going huntin' with this lovable pooch. Now I have to rethink things...

 

All that doesn't matter!  Isn't that great.  It doesn't matter who you are paying off, it doesn't affect your nuetrality.