I agree with wre – AI is not an elected body, it is a collection of individuals who represent merely themselves and some lofty and even some laudable ideals.

You are right in your view, it has become an organisation which prefers to follow the paparazzi path to fame, glory and headlines by promoting soft “underbelly” causes and completely missing the “real issues” which it could be promoting. But I guess, dealing with Burma’s Junta carries less kudos than pouting over some drug peddling parasite on Singapore’s death row.

Ultimately AI will fall into oblivion and its purpose into disrepute largely because it will cease to have any relevance at all – the thing is – no one will actually miss its passing until they realise air has rushed in and filled the vacuum.

What is Amnesty doing about Burma? Their international library lists all published documents over the last few years. The most recent issued this week. http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-mmr/index

Maybe you ought not to assume that because it doesn't make headlines means it doesn't happen

Col Rouge states " I agree with wre – AI is not an elected body ...". Nobody ever claimed it to be an elected body. It is an independent,self funded, membership based organisation, with over a million members around the world. The chances of it fading away are therefore slim, so you'll just have to get used to it being around for a long time yet. You could of course ignore it, and vent your spleen elsewhere.

Of course it has to collect funds. It does so via membership fees and donations. Nobody is forced to give them money. It has very few paid staff. Most of its resources are from its very large volunteer base. No doubt if it sought government grants you would criticise it as being parasitic.

It's a shame that this specific forum has gone so far off topic due to the ill-informed diatribes of a few.

Leigh writes, "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 a bloody tyrant in the form of the beast, Robert Mugabe. "

Mugabe can bloody well do what he likes in his own country. I'm interested in why Leigh calls Mugabe a tyrant and beast. It is at extreme odds with Leigh's later statement condemning Barns and Glenn.

I wonder if the authors are members? I don't think I've ever read a piece by Greg were he wasn't lying into someone. There can be no don't that Greg would have been writing a piece about the foolishness of Amnesty if they had of linked trade.

I am also a long term Amnesty International member and value the work the organisation does in promoting human rights around the world. It does do a lot in campaigning against capital punishment see http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-392/index but this is only one area of its concerns.
It is a member based orgamisation and members do most of the campaigning/actions.
I too get frustrated sometimes that as an organisation it does not take a stronger stand on some issues but I also realise that it has to be careful not to be seen to be too overtly political or it may lose its capacity to influence some governments. At the end of the day all that Amnesty and its members can do is lobby governments on behalf of individuals who are suffering human rights abuse.
Amnesty International has been operating for 40 years now and is a world wide organisation. It has many successes but does not prevent human rights abuse occurring. Hopefully it acts as a restraint on some governments but that is difficult to calculate.
Don't condemn AI as on organisation because it did not stop one individual from being executed.