I'm sorry guys but I think this article really typifies why Amnesty International has lost alot of support over the past few years. Despite having a wonderful ethos, I think people would rather it concentrated on Burma for instance rather than sympathising with the plight of a convicted drug trafficker.

Van Nguyen openly admitted that his goal was to make money from trafficking drugs- repaying a twin brothers debt is emotive but irrelevant. Heroin kills millions of people every year and leaves behind families who suffer every bit as much as Nguyen's family. Heroin also facilitates the longevity of the junta in Burma, the despots in North Korea and the war lords in Afghanistan.

Van Nguyen took a gamble and lost- thank god he did lose or there would be hundreds of other peoples families suffering in a much less publicised manner. Lets get some perspective back and never again hold a minutes silence for a drug trafficker!

WRE: You're off topic. The issue raised by the article is not the death penalty per se, but whether Amnesty took the best approach to trying to save Van Nguyen. Amnesty is an organisation based on preventing the abuse of human rights. If you don't believe in those human right (and clearly a lot of Australians don't), that's up to you, but not relevant to this particular forum topic.

Back on the subject, I too get frustrated at times by Amnesty's approach to issues. I am an Amnesty member and have at times been told that a particular path is not possible because it contravenes Amnesty's policies of being non-party political. I respect this stance, and they have to be very careful in the current political climate to be non-partisan. Even more so in other countries.

I think Greg and Howard are being a bit tough on Amnesty. They do a lot of great work, and I know a huge amount of effort was put into this particular case. Re the sms campaign, I think it was probably a futile exercise in the first place. But having chosen to do it, what were they going to say "only send a SMS via Telstra, Vodaphone, Virgin etc." I also think you are drawing a fine distinction between boycotting Optus and pressuring them.

What does frustrate me is the lack of co-ordination between the numerous groups which share common aims, and it is unfortunate that this seems to have occured in this case.

Sorry AMSADL but I disagree.

Yes there is an issue of whether Amnesty took the best approach to saving Nguyen. BUT the most important peripheral issue to that is whether Amnesty should be using its limited resources to lobby the government and corporate world to save a drug traffickers life.

In my book Amnesty should forget about lobbying in this regard and asserting that Nguyen was just a pawn etc and be concentrating far more on lobbying against Burma, North Korea etc.

Mr regard for amnesty took a very big dive over their attempt to exploit this issue. They were clearly in there for the funds, chasing a topical issue, but doing so on a case where Nguyen had the full benefit of a sound and impartial legal system.

This was not a human rights issue. Amnesty was no champion of the dispossessed or the disenfranchised they just flicked the switch to vaudeville over a dead mule. A guy who thought his rights included the right to kill my kids for profit. And for what? Thirty grand is hardly an insurmountable debt, is it?

Glenn and Barns obviously have their heads so far up each others backsides that they have completely lost sight of daylight.

My long-dead father was a member of Amnesty International. He was a lefty. I have always considered the organization as a group of interfering ratbags that, among others including Malcolm Fraser and his government, gave Rhodesia a new name and a bloody tyrant in the form of the beast, Robert Mugabe.

However, how AI can be blamed for failing to save convicted criminal Van Ngyuen from the gallows in Singapore, even by arch-blamers Glenn and Barns, is beyond reason.

If the Australian Government refused to consider “consumer pressure” against Singapore, what influence would Amnesty have? Would Singapore Government have changed its mind if pressure could be marshalled? No! Would enough Australian’s respond to calls for boycotts of Singapore to make any difference? No! Did the majority of Australians, even those who don’t approve of capital punishment, sympathise with the drug dealer? Unlikely.

I, albeit grudgingly, give marks to Amnesty International for common sense. Barns and Glenn get the their usual black mark for their arrogant assertions that it is OK to try to influence another country’s application of it laws, and for their lack of nous to know that theirs is a minority opinion

I think Leigh is right. What's more, the fundamental premises of this piece (that Amnesty prevented taking action against Optus etc, and that that their campaign was misguided) are without substance.

Did Amnesty's campaign prevent others, including Rights Australia, from encouraging Australians to take action in relation to Optus? No, it did not. In fact, it tacitly assisted them. The way I know this is that I got the email from Rights Australia that acknowledged Amnesty had been referring people who wished to engage in this way to the Rights Australia website. (There were no thanks from Rights Australia to Amnesty for acting as a referral service, by the way.)

Would a different style of campaign have saved Van? Difficult to say. I think not, but it is impossible to be sure. In any case, to suggest that it would have (and blame Amnesty for not running this type of campaign) is speculative at best. At worst, this is wilfully deceptive.

Supporters of Rights Australia may rightly be concerned that this vitriolic bile is what passed for human rights campaigning. It is not the first time they - especially Howard Glenn - have demonstrated an antagonism towards Amnesty that is personal, bordering on the pathological. Perhaps it is part of their grieving process?

In any case it is irresponsible and counter-productive. Glenn and Barns would be better off running their own campaigns the best they can. That is the only way they will receive my future support.