Amnesty International has always leaned lefty but they did have some shining moments. Leading the charge to end apartheid in South Africa is a prominent example that comes to mind. But "leaning lefty" might be considered in some quarters to be a tad different than "supporting jihadists". Crazy, we know.
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).
Claim they are a civil rights organization? Why didn't the Klan ever think of that?
Gita Sahgal, head of Amensty International's "gender unit" finally went public after years of internal protesting of AI's support of Begg. For doing so, Sahgal was reprimanded and suspended. And in case there was any misunderstanding as to AI's reasons for suspending Sahgal, AI HMFIC and Secretary-General Claudio Cordone issued a letter in defense of AI's collaboration with Begg and Cageprisoners.
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.
Never mind the fact that these jihadists would sooner blow themselves up in a crowded marketplace (or, more conveniently, convince someone else to do it) to advance the cause of sharia law than look at you, we're sure these jihadist's and AI's respective treatment of women, gays and minorities is an irony that is not lost on you.
Perhaps, it's not nearly as ironic now as it once was.
Exit question: Is it law that an organization possessing a position called Secretary-General must also be completely dysfunctional and counter-productive?