“Dan, thanks for responding…,” by phil, tdaxp, 29 June 2005, http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/06/26/introduction_to_modern_warfare_for_seth_of_cck.html#c152828.

An exceptionally brilliant comment by tdaxp reader Phil appears below. My …

Amnesty International’s stunning tendency to compare Guatanamo to the Soviet gulag system”â��?a comparison so amazingly dumb in its skewing of historical weight as to defy reason

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.

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.

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!)

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.

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 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.”Ã�?
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?

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.

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 =)

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.