Stardate 20030329.1539

(Captain's log): In response to my condemnation of Amnesty International, Steve writes:

While I'm not a member of Amnesty International, and don't support all their positions, a person reading your current top entry could get the impression that AI condemns the US and ignores the evil of Hussein and the Iraqi regime. A reader informed only by your site today certainly would not know the important fact that it would be difficult to find an organization which has done more to reveal and describe, over many years now, the horror of the Iraqi regime. Certainly AI should be admonished to be careful not to overemphasize the threats brought by the present US action, relative to the overall threats to human rights. But I think your information presents a very incomplete picture of the situation.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140052003
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140032002
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140142000
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webmepcountries/IRAQ?OpenDocument
http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/October2001/iraq
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140152000
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140122001
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE140042001

Unfortunately, what this does is make AI look even worse. Amnesty International is currently facing the same choice that the ACLU faced in Skokie.

Skokie is a suburb of Chicago, and in the 1970's it happens to have had a fairly large number of Jews living there, many of whom were either direct survivors of the Holocaust or had lost relatives in the Holocaust. A neo-Nazi group wanted to hold a parade there. They deliberately chose it because of its Jewish population, and the town refused to let them.

The American Civil Liberties Union is particularly interested in First Amendment cases, and faced a difficult choice. Most of its membership was liberal and leftist. However, this seemed to the ACLU to be a classic attempt to censor public speech based on the fact that it represented unpopular opinions (to say the least).

The ACLU decided to represent the Nazis in court, and David Goldberger (a Jew) handled the case. He successfully won the right for the Nazis to hold their demonstration. (Which, oddly, they never actually held.) What motivated the ACLU was the fact that if they truly believed in defending free expression, then they were obligated to defend it even if they despised the speakers and profoundly disagreed with their message. The ACLU board demonstrated its courage and convictions.

Because of this, many members of the ACLU ceased to renew their memberships, and it took a long time for the ACLU to recover from it. The ACLU board knew this would happen, but refused to let it dissuade them. They made the principled decision without reference to the mercenary consequences.

The ACLU defends that decision to this day.

Time after time, the ACLU is asked, "Why did you defend that person, that group? Why did you represent the Nazis in Skokie, Illinois, the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panthers?" The ACLU does not defend the person per se, but the right to express unpopular views - in the belief that once the government is empowered to violate anyone's rights it will use that power against all of us.

Historically, those most vulnerable, most controversial, or those least aware of their rights are most frequently the first victims of government repression. The ACLU works to stop the erosion of liberties before it spreads out of control.

"The ACLU's 60-year guardianship of the Bill of Rights has done much to advance the cause of working men and women."
   - Douglas Fraser, former president, United Auto Workers

The ACLU cannot take every case, no matter how legitimate. But the organization itself selects cases that will have the widest impact on the greatest number of people - cases that have the potential to break new ground or establish broad precedents, that in some way can strengthen the freedoms that we all enjoy.

I fully believe that the ACLU did the right thing, by the way, on two levels. First, I agree with the basic principle the ACLU was defending: freedom of speech must include defense of highly unpopular speech. I also agree with the ACLU board's decision that staying true to its principles was more important than short-term pandering to its membership.

Defending free expression required the ACLU to have the appearance of aligning with the Nazis. The ACLU board didn't shrink from this.

In the long run, the ACLU was strengthened. It survived the short-term financial hit with its reput