Amnesty International has come out with a report that calls Guantanamo Bay the gulag of our time. I’m glad to say that our executive branch hasn’t wasted any time in reacting to the report.
“I’m aware of the Amnesty International report and it’s absurd… The United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world.”
President George W. Bush“The United States has done more to advance the cause of freedom, has liberated more people from tyranny over the course of the 20th century and up to the present day than any other nation in the history of the world.”
Vice President Richard A. Cheney
AMEN. No, the US isn’t perfect. On a normal day, I’d find plenty to criticize in Mr. Bush’s policies. But as extremists frame the debate so far to the left with arguments like “the Iraq war is about oil and fighting Daddy’s war,” and other nonsense such as “Guantanamo is the gulag of our time,” I find it hard to get to my criticism. As Howard Dean said to Ralph Nader in trying to persuade him to give up his candidacy last fall, “When the house is on fire, don’t worry about changing the furniture.”
Where is Amnesty’s moral clarity? Guantanamo violates US and international law and should be shut down! A valid point perhaps. Yet if you check out Amnesty’s Iraq index, you’ll notice that they haven’t criticized insurgents/terrorists/suicide bombers in half a year. Their last thirteen reports all criticize the new Iraqi government for — guess what! — sentencing terrorists to death (what about the terrorist executions, without trial, of civilians?), detentions without counsel (what about hostages held and beheaded by terrorists?), and their fear for women’s rights in the new regime (with the alternative being what under Bin Laden’s cohorts?). In more than 170 articles about Iraq since the 2003 invasion, only six criticize the terrorist criminals who are the cause of all the murder and violence in Iraq.
And this isn’t an isolated example: it’s a core problem with Amnesty’s current strategy, as I noted in this take on their criticism of the King in Nepal two months ago. You’ll thus excuse me if I have a hard time taking Amnesty seriously on anything.
Perhaps Dr. A. R. Wallace can relate his personal experiences with Amnesty in the comments section or in a guest post. To relate his story second hand, Amnesty’s original mission was lobbying authoritarian dictators with hundreds of thousands of volunteers across the world who wrote letters to the leaders of countries who kept political prisoners. That was a noble mission and an effective strategy that they effectively pursued through the 1970s and 1980s. But today, Amnesty is just another left-leaning NGO that does nothing proactive and hops on the US foreign policy bashing bandwagon at a moments notice. Chest-thumping, self-righteous criticism might make you feel good, but it does not make for an effective policy.
If I said that being a Republican in Hollywood was like being a Jew in Hitler’s Germany, people would call me on that, right? The same should go for Amnesty’s use of “gulag.” They are more than slightly overstating the Gitmo reality, where several hundred are held, dozens have been released, and none have been killed. Need I remind you what the USSR’s gulag was really about:
In 1931″“32, Gulag had approximately 200,000 prisoners in the camps; in 1935 — approximately 800,000 in camps and 300,000 in colonies (annual averages), and in 1939 about 1.3 millions in camps and 350,000 in colonies… During World War II, Gulag populations declined sharply, owing to mass “releases” of hundreds of thousands of prisoners who were conscripted and sent directly to the front lines, but mainly due to a steep rise in mortality in 1942″“43. After WWII the number of inmates in prison camps and colonies rose again sharply and reached the number of approximately 2.5 million people by the early 1950s (about 1.7 millions of whom in camps).
Finally, Amnesty should note that their self-righteous reports don’t do them any good — indeed, it just gives Mr. Bush et al. the right to repeat with more authority what a majority of Americans believe: that the US is a force for good and freedom.
While I would agree that the gulag statement was exaggeration, I fail to see why the lack of criticism of insurgency in Iraq gives them a lack of moral clarity in your eyes. Their stance against the death penalty (in, as far as I can tell, all cases) requires them to reprimand the Iraqi government. Since their previous article attacking the insurgency focused on human rights violations of individuals like beheadings and kidnappings, one should not be surprised that Amnesty’s articles have stopped focusing on the insurgency. Either way, I doubt either the writers or the audience that read the Amnesty articles thinks that an Iraq controlled by the insurgency would have more of a respect for human rights than the new Iraqi government.
A separate question seems to be whether Amnesty International would be better served by moderating its reports. While you think the “gulag” reference seems to have helped the Bush Administration dismiss Amnesty’s claims, it is worth noting that without such hyperbolic language, it is doubtful that the report would have gotten so much media coverage. It is possible that the “majority of Americans” you reference in your last paragraph might take a second look at Guantanamo.
Speaking of effectiveness, if the Bush Administration wanted to spread the message that the United States is the harbinger of freedom and the repository of all that is good in the world (as it seems that they do), they would be better served to consider international perceptions of Guantanamo. I doubt that a majority of the world’s population believes that Guantanamo is part of all that is free and good.
Curzon: I read the same garbage yesterday in the news and am happy to see such a concise and to the point post about it.
However, I do agree with Martey somewhat. His point is that we should do something about Gitmo in order to ease international pereptions. Whether you or I think it’s anywhere near a gulag is another matter, but as we all know, the perception of reality is far more important than reality itself and though I give the Bush administration a lot of credit for doing things that need to be done in the face of international criticism, they also often fail to explain their position well enough and advertise their policy in a way to at least soften the blow.
While I in _no way_ think that we should be treating terrorists nicely (not flushing the Koran or having female interrogators harass them), we should do more for public opinion and if it doens’t work then at least we tried.
I also read a story yesterday which discussed an Al Qaeda handbook which teaches terrorists to claim torture if captured. That should be right up there next to the Amnesty report for example. The fact that it was in the news was already good but we need to work harder. I want to see Mother Teresa up on CNN saying we need to take care of business =)
I’m pretty sure that Amnesty focuses its work on repressive states, not violent insurgent groups. From their website: “AI’s mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.”
Yes, it was monumentally idiotic to compare Gitmo to the gulag. But no, Amnesty is not wrong to refrain from criticizing terrorists. Going after terrorists just isn’t in Amnesty’s MO. Their MO is going after governments that repress people’s rights, and they see detention without due process as a Repressive Thing regardless of who’s being detained, which is a more common sentiment than you might think. Some of us haven’t let this Eternal War on Terror change our views of what’s right and what’s wrong.
All good points. Yes, Bush should explain things better. And AI is in a Catch 22. They criticized Guantanamo before and got no press. So they use “Gulag” and get lots of press, cheers from the ilk at DailyKos, and lots of flack from people like me!
I also read a story yesterday which discussed an Al Qaeda handbook which teaches terrorists to claim torture if captured.
WOW.
I’m pretty sure that Amnesty focuses its work on repressive states, not violent insurgent groups. From their website: “AI’s mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.”Â?
So the terrorists in Iraq are not gravely abusing rights? They support freedom of expression? That leads me to more beef with Amnesty — they only criticize those in power. Well, if the terrorists in Iraq came into power, Amnesty’s claims there would increase a hundred fold.
Some of us haven’t let this Eternal War on Terror change our views of what’s right and what’s wrong.
Are you saying I have?
(I am a proud member of the Hong Kong branch of Amnesty International for the actions and programs it promotes for the respect of human rights in some of Asia’s worst regimes, like North Korea, Burma and China)
However, the global AI has become a sick joke in the 21st century. While it musters enormous resources to criticize and document “abuses” at Gitmo, genocide rages in Darfur, Iran tortures and murders its dissidents and Egypt beats and imprisions them.
So they sacrifice their larger mission in order to placate what I suspect to be the same donors who are ruining the Democratic party in America, far-left fringe actors who despise America and Western values in general and pollute AI’s coffers with their vast donations that trump those of moderates.
For those who claim the insurgency in Iraq is not AI’s line of work, that acts as nothing more than a cover for them being unable to adjust to the 21st century. (Read your Kaplan! j/k )
Read media reports from literally anywhere and you’ll learn about militias terrorizing civilians in places like the Congo, Sudan and Uganda. How about terrorists slaughtering innocents in coordinated campaigns in Iraq, Israel and Saudi Arabia? Or trans-national crime networks enslaving farmers, workers and young children (for sexual purposes)? What about other non-state actors terrorizing civilian populations in Columbia, Pakistan and Indonesia?
The worst human rights abuses are increasingly not occuring at the hands of the state (exceptions allowed for North Korea, Sudan and Burma for example) but at the hands of rebel armies, terrorists, criminals and armed bands.
If AI cannot adjust to this new reality, then unfortunately, it will fail and die. In the meantime, new human rights organziations must make it their mission to face this problem head-on and come up with fresh, innovative tactics to counter them.
I don’t think it’s in an adapt or die situation Eddie. If Human Rights Watch proves anything, AI International can do pretty well for itself. There is a pretty healthy market for human rights pornography.
Martey, you make some fair points about moderating the message. But, if this is what they have to do to get attention from the public, then they don’t deserve to be taken seriously. The behavior is little better than that of a carnival barker.
And Joe, if AI’s mission just involves states, thanks for clearing that up. I thought they cared about human rights, but I guess I was wrong. Curzon’s right. Their beef is with those in power, and like HRW, they’ve tainted their otherwise admirable work by pandering to knee-jerk, suburban revolutionaries.
I can see that by going over the top with their accusations, AI did get the attention of the Bush admin, and I do hope that it has made Bush et al think more about how they’re handling it all, in terms of pr and in terms of whether some parts of the process do overstep the boundaries.
But at the same time, I think that with AI taking a few kernels of possible truth and then exaggerating and blowing it all out of proportion just adds to a negative image of the international left (at least in my mind, it certainly does). Over the decades, the left has so often resorted to mountains of distortions and exaggerations (I won’t give examples cause there are plenty) and carrying on in the usual way only hurts their credibility further.
I think this over the top anti-Americanism has helped to push more moderate conservatives like myself (and millions of others in the US) to give less of a damn about what others say. With every distortion, exaggeration and lie, I’m more tempted to say “Keep on going, George! To hell with all the whiners and appeasers. Look out for American interests first.” (and I’m not even American!)
God DAMN you guys are bleeding-heart.
Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Rumsfeld Signs Up
Amnesty International have made a very significant change in their modus operandi in the last few years, and I regret I didn’t catch it. In the early days it was a stated rule that AI did not dabble in its home turf – a writer in the UK might write to the US bemoaning capital punishment, and one in the US might bemoan illegalities in Belfast, but the organization recognized it was too divisive, and in some countries too dangerous, to have nationals write to their own governments, or indeed comment on them.
This was an excellent policy for many reasons, and it is a great shame it has gone by the board. If there is a case to answer for Guantanamo, it should have been raised by AI in Switzerland, or someone “outside” the issue. And it should have been raised in the traditional AI way – a flood of letters from individuals.
Amnesty USA-’Don’t know for sure’ about Guantanamo
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Despite highly publicized charges of U.S. mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, the head of the Amnesty International USA said on Sunday the group doesn’t “know for sure” that the military is running a “gulag.”
Executive Director William Schulz said Amnesty, often cited worldwide for documenting human rights abuses, also had no information about whether Secretary Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved severe torture methods such as beatings and starvation.
Barnett weighs in:
Yes the gulag statement did damage Amnesty International ‘s image, and seems to place them in the camp of America’s enemies. But was’nt it this administration which drew the difference between the islamic fascist governments and America by talking of “the rule of law’. Holding these men in a legal limbo, seems to be the problem. There can not be ‘rule of Law” and then a special area where the administration decides the rule of law does not apply. Amnesty would have been much more effective with a reasoned legal approach than this hysterical mud slinging. Let us not be too quick to silence opposition voices, they can often be the brakes that prevent us sliding into extremism. More pro americans should be members of Amnesty, not give the field to the few and the rabid.
Pingback: tdaxp
Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Museum of Left Wing Lunacy