I share Dan Breen's admiration for the work of AHRC, his perception that it is anomalous for someone who is advocating up-front & open action to be using a nom-de-plume (note, he doesn't condemn anonymity per se; he merely points out the double standard), and his acceptance of the adoption by Thai HR advocates of procedures that they deem appropriate to the context & circumstances, which can be life-threatening. (In regard to Amnesty in re. LM, though, I haven't yet made up my mind - it's a huge, world-wide organisation with considerable power & resources, & therefore not in the vulnerable condition of local bodies.) In a society where there is a long history of wrongful accusations, government-sanctioned torture, & 'disappearances,' HR bodies do what they can, in whatever way they can.

Nobody is under any illusions regarding the nature of the current NHRC, but one has to work with what exists, not what 'should' exist. The important thing is to continue working, even where compromises have to be made. I have a story from my own youth which illustrates this:

In Sydney during the 60s, the cops & stipendiary magistrates were extremely corrupt. This was well-known, but it was difficult to do anything about, because of libel laws ('truth' was not a defense), & many politicians were also very corrupt. One evening I was walking with my brother & other friends in McCleay St, in the King's Cross area. One of the guys blew a kiss at a pretty girl who passed us with her friends, and called out, "Hello darling!." The girls giggled & continued walking. I laughed fairly loudly. The next moment he & I were arrested by 2 plain-clothes policemen, thrown into a police van, & carted off to the police station, where we were thrown into a cell for a couple of hours, finger-printed, & charged with Offensive Behaviour. This was a charge used by the cops to cover a wide range of situations, almost everything, since it had a very loose definition: all the cops had to do was to show that the act had offended someone, anyone (including themselves). Our friends bailed us out, & we were instructed to appear in the magistrates' court next morning. Our friends contacted the Council for Civil Liberties, who supplied us with a lawyer. In the morning, the lawyer stood up when our case was called & requested an adjournment, "in order to instruct counsel, Mr (a well-known lawyer)." There was a visible reaction from the cops.