Amnesty’s wild claim that Gitmo is a regular ole Gulag prompted a nice response from the ultra-conservative New Republic:
Gulag: For the most part, Gulag prisoners provided labor for the Soviet system. Treatment varied widely, but most prisoners lived in overcrowded barracks, and prisoners occasionally killed one another in an effort to find space to sleep. Deadly dysentery and typhus outbreaks were common. Prisoners often had inadequate clothing to protect themselves from the elements, and most camps lacked running water and heat.
Guantánamo: A recent Time magazine report found that “the best-behaved detainees are held in Camp 4, a medium-security, communal-living environment with as many as 10 beds in a room; prisoners can play soccer or volleyball outside up to nine hours a day, eat meals together and read Agatha Christie mysteries in Arabic. Less cooperative detainees typically live and eat in small, individual cells and get to exercise and shower only twice a week.” Human Rights Watch and other watchdog groups have collected firsthand testimony from prisoners alleging abuses, including the use of dogs, extended solitary confinement, sexual humiliation, and “stress positions.” An official investigation uncovered only minor abuses, and most detainee accusations have not been verified.
Amnesty – which we’re calling Amnesia on account of their sense of history – has some other interesting claims on their web site. Did you know that violence against women is the “greatest human rights scandal of our time?” Amnesia does. Never mind that 60% of violent crime victims in the US are male::
During 1994 men experienced almost 6.6 million violent victimizations; women experienced 5 million. For every 3 violent victimizations of males, there were 2 of females.
…or that 77% of murder victims, or 99% of military deaths, or that women resort to violence in relationships as often as men – when momma ain’t happy, Amnesia ain’t happy and that’s just the way it is.
The current leader of Amnesia, Irene Zubaida Khan, has clearly run it off the rails.
H/T John Cole.
Here’s a good linkie-winkie: Shamnesty International via Protein:
Al Qaeda knows better than any organization that its success depends on peeling both Muslim-world support and U.S. public support away from the Bush administration’s war on terrorism. Consider the quasi-reasoned tone Osama bin Laden adopted in a recording he allegedly made last November, calling on the “people of America” to drop their support for the president. The recording was full of contemporary and historical allusions, as is the training manual. If Al Qaeda’s savvy enough for that, it’s savvy enough to know that civil liberties – even the civil liberties of accused bad guys – are a hot-button issue in the U.S.
In the U.S. alone, there are 65-plus lawsuits claiming abuse of detainees at American hands. There are still more legal demarches overseas. We’ve seen inaccurate Koran-desecration stories send Muslim crowds raging in protest. We have regular accounts of arrested terrorism suspects being sent to third countries where they face torture-driven interrogation. And, as if on cue, we have Amnesty International calling the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, “the gulag of our time.”
Naturally, the Bush administration is berating the organization for such a ridiculous comparison. After all, Guantanamo Bay’s guards are under the microscope of human-rights lawyers all the time. The inmates are fairly treated. The guard-throws-Koran-in-toilet story was false. And claims that the inmates’ detention oversteps the boundaries of international law have been responded to at the highest levels. Besides, the 500-600 Guantanamo detainees wouldn’t be there if Al Qaeda hadn’t killed 2,948 Americans and others on Sept 11, 2001.
The cottage industry stuff is spot on. Read it and see.
Of course the fact that w has built up a major reputation for lying is a very big help to al Quaeda in making the case against U.S. treatment of prisoners.
After lying about WMD, lying about figures for Medicare spending (plus threatening members of his administration not to release real figures), lying about figures for the Iraq war – on and on he goes, obliterating any influence he might have.
It’s well accepted that this administration uses the tactic of outright lying, which is of the greatest help to enemies of the U.S. in establishing the opposite of anything this administration claims.
Bush didn’t “lie” about WMDs, he believed the intelligence (as we all did), and the rest of your claims are quite flimsy.
The best way to help America’s enemies is to do little or nothing when they attack us, like Clinton, which gave Osama the idea that America’s weak an unwilling to defend herself.
Are you familiar with the downing street memo which was the minutes of decision to go to war taken at downing street before the administration started touting WMD as reason? And does ‘flimsy’ describe vast discrepancies in figures before and after Medicare and war in Iraq?
My grandchildren will be paying off the deficit spending that the administration claimed was necessary to create a healthy economy, and which has done nothing of the sort.
Osama bin Laden was in the process of working out his plans against the US ‘way before the last bush presidency – and Bush I was the one who left Iraq because it was too much trouble.
Save your breath, Ruth.
Richard believes George W. Bush to be a man of intelligence, veracity, and ability–and nothing you or anyone says can change his view.
Actually, kim, I would expect everything w does and says would be the best evidence to the contrary. Or at least its effect on our prosperity.
Yes, let’s save our breath and rely on ‘accepted’ knoweldge like Bush lying, blah blah blah… and other hits of our times like blacks aren’t humans and Jews run the world… It couldn’t be that people are just so gullible they refuse to apply reason but accept these things that feed partisan or ideological thirst. And being gullible to accept any rumor and innuendo that impeaches our leadership also happens to pay well into: “Al Qaeda knows better than any organization that its success depends on peeling both Muslim-world support and U.S. public support away from the Bush administration’s war on terrorism.”
But then there are those in our country that would defend Al Qaeda as not being the problem…
Sorry, Stuart, I don’t quite follow the thread of your comment, it’s a little incoherent.
Ruth,
That’s what I would expect too, but it’s not the case.
To be blunt:
Richard lays out a succinct case for how screwy Amnesty International has become and the damage these ridiculous accusations can cause.
Trying to lay the blame at the feet of George Bush simply plays into Al Qaeda’s hand. The litany of accusations that bear precious little credible evidence are equally harmful to our nation and those who value the rule of law and freedom. In these discussions they are also a red herring (going from Amnesty International to the deficit).
Thanks for being blunt, Stuart. You’re clearer that way.
Seems to me like you’re susceptible to ‘accepted’ knowledge of a different sort, & perhaps just as spurious. Certainly speculative if nothing else.
Perhaps I should be blunt as well. To say that critics of Mr Bush & his administration are “playing into the hands” of al Qaeda is pure conjecture. And to say that those who exercise their right to be critical of the government are “harmful” to the nation is perhaps even un-democratic.
Responsible criticism is fine, but the hyperbolic crap coming out of AI these days is a whole other kettle of fish, and that’s why we criticize these critics. Is that sort of critcism allowed, or have we surrendered our free speech rights to political correctness?
It’s great to critize Franken et al. They’re no strangers to hyperbolic crap (nor is Coulter & Co) for sure. But they’re no “traitors” nor do they “play into the hands of the enemy”. That’s hyperbolic.
Nobody’s (thankfully) suurendered free speech yet.
Amnesty International (AI) don’t qualify as traitors because their leadership aren’t US citizens. By comparing Gitmo to the Gulag they’re clearly doing Al Qaeda’s work, but feel free to pretend otherwise if it makes you happy.
Thanks for your permission.
Accusations of ‘political correctness’ I’ve encountered lately seem to be intended to cut off clear perception of the actual content of the critique.
AI was much used by Rumsfeld for its condenmnation of Saddam Hussein’s violence. I doubt calling his prisons ‘gulags’ would have aroused any response at all.
Defensiveness on the part of administration supporters appears IMHO to be cutting into their ability to see clearly.
Because Rumsfeld quoted AI when they told the truth about Saddam’s gulag, he and others are not allowed to criticize them when they lie about the Guantanamo “gulag”? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
And if you think calling Saddam’s prisons a gulag is unfair, you know nothing about gulags or Saddam or both. The percentage of citizens murdered, tortured, or unjustly imprisoned by Saddam may not be quite as high as Stalin’s, but it’s in the same ballpark. Any dictator who imprisons more than 1% or 2% of his population for purely political reasons (over and above muggers and rapists, I mean) is running a gulag.
At no point did I say that calling Saddam’s prisons a gulag is unfair.
I said: *I doubt calling his prisons ‘gulags’ would have aroused any response at all.*
But I do not think that it is correct to say that AI ‘lied’ about our prison at Gitmo. I do believe it was not appropriate language, but not wildly misplaced.
There has been no credible evidence that Bush lied (unlike evidence [and confessions] that Clinton and Nixon lied). The mass media (and those that also desire to profit from controversy such as Amnesty International) finds benefit in creating stories. Gullible people swallow such nonsense by not being able to think critically and perhaps without benefit of experience or a little worldy wisdom. In the case of the AI story – there is profound stupidity at work which benefits those who seek to harm us.
That Cuba, North Korea and Syria are treated far more gently by AI indicates a total lack of objectivity. Try going to one of these countries with the express purpose of exposing the abuse in there – see what kind of warm treatment you will receive.
@Richard
Here is a link that details an Al Qaeda directive to use the media to deceive as well as the part of the AI release that urges the kidnapping of American officals.
And conspiracy theorists will just love this stuff, such as the statements by Eason Jordan of CNN.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050613/13john.htm
I used to think Amnesty International was doing this world a service – I’d have to have a prefrontal lobotomy to think so now.
Sorry, I listen to the shrub and if you don’t acknowledge his constant lies, you are unable to differentiate between dirt and water. Since above I have mentioned some, you are obviously not admitting to facts.
Ruth, the Bush Administration has shown (& in some cases openly admitted) that facts can be altered or spun to fit policy. If one accepts this as a pragmatic means of maintaining/implementing policy (which implies an a priori belief in the policies themselves), then almost anything said or done will be in the service of the “cause”, which is “good”. Thus, no “lies” were told, as it were. President Bush follows the Teflon tradition established by President Reagan, former B actor and front man for General Electric (“where progress is our most important product”), who embodied our myth of masculine American individuality (rugged, self-made, honest, friendly, optimistic, and so forth). Who authored Reagan? Who authored Bush? The only truthful answer is: we (all Americans) did.
Actually, there’s a lot more lying on the side of those calling Bush a liar than on his side. If the intelligence agencies tell you what everybody already believes, you act on it, and it turns out to be wrong, that doesn’t make you a liar.
Consider this: you probably believe that global warming is caused by gas-guzzling SUVs, and there’s some science to back up this idea. If at some point we learn that it’s actually caused by seal farts, dung beetles, or faulty estimation, does that make you a liar?
By your logic, it does.
Why would I believe global warming is caused by SUVs? Global warming has been around a lot longer than Explorers or Tahoes. Why talk down to folks, Richard?
Earlier, when I expressed surprise & concern over your occasional (apparent) forays into gullibility when it comes to “official” statements from the current administration (I always thought of you as a dedicated sceptic when it came the policy of any government or administration), it hurt me do so.
As far as the “logic” that “everybody” believed the intelligence agencies: Lots of people did not. All over the world. Some were in gevernment, others not. And many more were sceptical.
Moreover, what ever happened to that sign on the President’s desk that says “The buck stops here”?
The liberation of Iraq has been a resounding success, freeing 30 million people from tyranny and creating the first Arab democracy. Yet we have this Lilliputian Army whining about the process by which this came about: “but what about the WMDs???”
I don’t think the WMDs mattered all that much, as the basis for the war was a lot larger than that. Anyway, given Saddam’s history we could very well anticipate WMD production as soon as the sanctions were lifted. The critics of the liberation sound shrill and boring, like lawyers trying to win a case on a technicality.
Exactly!
“I don’t think the WMD mattered all that much, as the basis for the war was a lot larger than that.”
You illustrated my point perfectly.
What does it matter if the war was “sold” to the American people on the basis of immanent threat from WMD? What does it matter if the war was “planned” long before any public talk of giving UN investigations “a chance”? What does it matter what the Administration says one minute, or what they say the next? The “larger basis” is what they stand for, & to uphold that any means necessary can & must be deployed. For the good of all.
If that is one’s view, then not only was the invasion of Iraq the right thing & a resounding success, then Mr Bush is one of the noblest, far sighted, & courageous Presidents of modern times (not counting Reagan, of course).
Do I get the picture?
What does it matter if the war was “sold” to the American people on the basis of immanent threat from WMD?
But it wasn’t, and we’ve documented this over and over again. It was sold and debated as a pre-emptive attack on a despot who hadn’t lived up to his obligations after the Gulf War.
Politics often involves simplification of complex policy issues, and prudent governments plan for likely outcomes. There’s nothing to see here.
It wasn’t “exactly” as you put it.
The invasion of Iraq was sold to the American people as a pre-emptive attack on a despot who had WMD that were an immanent threat to the lives & well being of American citizens.
Statements to that effect from Mr Bush, Mr Cheney, Mr Rumsfeld, & Mr Powell were all over television & in print.
Anyway, we’re splitting hairs. The “reasons” for war were multiple, as were the ways it was “sold”.
PS: If the reason for the attack was that a nation’s leader was “not living up to his obligations”, then very few Americans would stand for sending large numbers of our boys into harm’s way.
Wrong Kim, Pres. Bush never said Saddam as an “imminent threat”, he used the phrase “grave and gathering”. Check the State of the Union Address from 2003.
The “imminent threat” myth is one of Air America’s finest creations.
The idea of imminent threat, whether embodied in the words “grave and gathering” or any others, is what was presented to the American people. There are quotes from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell as well that refer to Sadam’s biological weapons, possible nuclear weapons; in a word “danger”. War was presented as an immediate necessity. The danger was real, & now. Not abstract, not theoretical, not in some unforseeable future. Real & imminent. About to occur. If not today, tomorrow. This is what people were encouraged to feel.
Air America didn’t even exist before Iraq was attacked.
What are you arguing about?
Moreover, even if I change the words (removing “imminent”) to “The invasion of Iraq was sold to the American as a pre-emptive attack on a despot who had WMD that were a threat to the lives and well being of American citizens”, it doesn’t the essential meaning.
Sorry to have mispelled “imminent” first time around.
Sorry, I mean “it doesn’t change the essential meaning.”
Must be coffee time.
No, “grave and gathering” doesn’t mean “imminent”. If it had been a war against an imminent threat, it wouldn’t have been controversial and it wouldn’t have been desirable to seek UN approval.
It was believed — correctly, I think — that Saddam would one day arm terrorists to attack the US. We didn’t know where or when, but we knew it was a likely, almost certain, eventuality.
Saddam had openly supported Palestinian suicide bombers and he had openly harbored Abu Nidal. He had a number of weapons scientists on his payroll, and he didn’t cooperate with Hans Blix. That’s all we had to know.
amnesia? shamnesty? Gulag or guesthouse… I don’t know if I’d be all that anxious to get out of that place if I came from afghanistan…
ck funny song about gitmo prisoners
at http://bloggersrow.com laugh it up
these guys are getting the royal treatment.
nobody screamed about my favorite book getting tossed in the toilet by the aclu