White emphasizes that Amnesty is a non-partisan, apolitical organization. Groups never handle political prisoners from within their own country to ensure impartiality. "We are really serious about not letting political beliefs interfere with the handling of prisoners," she says White points with pride to the fact that Amnesty has been alternately attacked as left-wing by Chile and right-wing by the Soviet Union. "Amnesty does not want to be identified with anything but the observance of human rights," she explains. "We are not trying to change the political structures of countries, but only the way they treat their political prisoners."

Amnesty's success has grown in proportion to its reputation. White mentions that prisoners often receive more food and better treatment once it is known that Amnesty has adopted their case. "In countries where repression is a serious issue, everybody in the jails knows about us," she says. Amnesty's services extend beyond merely obtaining a prisoner's release. The organization sometimes supports a prisoner's family while he is in jail, and often helps him to reorganize his life after he is out. White stresses that Amnesty does not only adopt famous dissidents, but "the little guy who nobody has heard of" as well (past Amnesty causes have included everyone from Benjamin Spock to Allende's sister). Amnesty also issues investigative reports on countries where political imprisonment is known to be a problem.

The Boston chapter of Amnesty was founded only recently but has already begun to attract support. White is the sole employee, and runs the operation from her home in Boston. She comments that "the Boston area is one of the most fertile grounds for Amnesty in the whole country, with so many liberal-minded students and others." An Amnesty-sponsored rally in Lowell Lecture Hall last spring drew a fair crowd for exam period, and featured a speech by George Wald, the Biology professor-cum-political activist. White would like to see Amnesty "grow by leaps and bounds" on the east coast as it has done in Western Europe. She would also like to see Amnesty establish outposts in Communist countries, but the quashing of a Soviet chapter two weeks after its inception last spring makes those prospects rather bleak.

Many Americans automatically associate the word "amnesty" with the issue of Viet Nam draft resisters, according to White. Although Amnesty heartily supports the freeing of draft resisters as part of its overall policy on the liberation of political prisoners. White terms it "unfortunate" that Amnesty International should be identified with them exclusively, lamenting that "simply the word 'amnesty' causes antipathy among some people." She says that mailmen have been known to refuse to deliver letters bearing the organization's name for this reason (Amnesty now uses the initials A.I. for its return address).

Ultimately, Amnesty aims at the same area of the American consciousness as those ads in the New Yorker which inform the reader that you-can-save-Jose-for-$15-a-month-or-turn-the-page. As White notes, "once you adopt a prisoner, the relationship weighs so heavily on your conscience that you feel personally responsible for his welfare." She adds that "this is why Amnesty works so well--it makes the members feel so concerned and successful with what they are doing."

In spite of its ambitious designs, Amnesty has its limitations. White observes that "it would be Pollyanna-ish to say that we're always successful." It is of course impossible for Amnesty to find out about all the political prisoners in the world. After imprisoning someone for political reasons, governments are naturally not anxious to publicize the matter and usually do their best to conceal it. "We are only handling a miniscule amount compared with the problem," White concedes. Amnesty must still reject even some of those cases that come to its attention, due to sheer volume. "We're successful with those cases we take, but we can't take everybody," she explains. And when a prisoner is freed, it is often impossible to attribute his release directly to Amnesty Litvinov, Bitar, and Karefa-Smart all mention that a combination of forces brought about their liberation, but Amnesty can serve as an effective channel for these forces.

Despite Amnesty's limitations, there is no denying the gains it has scored for political prisoners throughout the world. No other organization addresses itself directly to the plight of those who, in Pavel Litvinov's words, "know the feeling of being abandoned."