Anne Applebaum remembers what Amnesty International used to be, and laments what it has become:
I don’t know when Amnesty ceased to be politically neutral or at what point its leaders’ views morphed into ordinary anti-Americanism. But surely Amnesty’s recent misuse of the word "gulag" marks some kind of turning point. In the past few days, not only has Amnesty’s secretary general, Irene Khan, called the U.S. prison for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "the gulag of our times," but Amnesty’s U.S. director, William Schulz, has agreed that U.S. prisons for enemy combatants are "similar at least in character, if not in size, to what happened in the gulag." In an interview, Schulz also said that foreign governments should prosecute U.S. officials, as if they were the equivalent of the Soviet Union’s criminal leadership.
Thus Guantanamo is the gulag, President Bush is Generalissimo Stalin, and the United States, in Khan’s words, is a "hyper-power" that "thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights" just like the Soviet Union. In part, I find this comparison infuriating because in the Soviet Union it would have been impossible for the Supreme Court to order the administration to change its policies in Guantanamo Bay, as it has done, or for the media to investigate Abu Ghraib, as they has done, or for Irene Khan to publish an independent report about anything at all.
A commonly-heard defense is that Amnesty’s rhetoric was merely meant to draw attention to the persistent mistreatment and murder (yes, "murder," unlike "gulag," is an accurate term) of unarmed detainees under our care. That noble ends justify a noble lie, and its attendant slander. Indeed, this seems to be Amnesty’s only remaining defense, since even Amnesty has conceded (as it must) that its use of the term gulag was wildly inaccurate.
A preference for doublespeak over the dictionary, however, is indeed a slender reed on which to hang a defense. Applebaum continues:
Like Khan and Schulz, I am appalled by this administration’s detention practices and interrogation policies, by the lack of a legal mechanism to judge the guilt of alleged terrorists, and by the absence of any outside investigation into reports of prison abuse. But I loathe these things precisely because the United States is not the Soviet Union, because our detention centers are not intrinsic to our political system, and because they are therefore not "similar in character" to the gulag at all.
And then comes the rub:
Most of all, though, I hate them because they are counterproductive. Like the Cold War, the war on terrorism is an ideological war, one that we will "win" when our opponents give up and join us, just like the East Germans who streamed over the Berlin Wall. But if the young people of the Arab world are to reject radical Islam and climb that wall, they will have to admire what they see on the other side. Almost never before have we so badly needed neutral, credible, human rights advocates who can investigate the U.S. detention policy in context, remembering that we live in a system whose courts, legislature and media can all effect change. Amnesty, by misusing language, by discarding its former neutrality, and by handing the administration an easy way to brush off "ridiculous" accusations, also deprives itself of what should be its best ally. The United States, as the world’s largest and most powerful democracy, remains, for all its flaws, the world’s best hope for the promotion of human rights. If Amnesty still believes in its stated mission, its leaders should push American democratic institutions to influence U.S. policy for the good of the world, and not attack the American government for the satisfaction of their own political faction.
(Emphasis mine.)
Never forget our errors, our sins of omission of commission, or our excesses of fear and anger. Never forget the wrongs that have been perpetrated in our name in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and other places whose names and places remain unknown. Don’t leave unanswered the amoralists who purport to the high ground, and who propose that all is justified against an evil foe.
No, do not forget any of these things; or that this is a battle of ideas that must be mostly fought with trades and exchanges and travel and open debate. That the advantages of Islam as peace — our vision, and also the vision and belief of so many Muslims — must be argued for and shown at every turn in order to put the lie to those who rejoice in bloodletting. This is the clarity that we must have — a clarity that leads a young man to stand in the way of a column of tanks and a people to bring down the wall that divides them — if we are to defeat the militant Islamists as we defeated the communists before them.
But also do not forget that there is good and evil in the world, and that we — the free societies of the North, South, East, and West — are the good.
Talking about throwing things away:
“Amnesty, by misusing language, by discarding its former neutrality, and by handing the administration an easy way to brush off “ridiculous” accusations, also deprives itself of what should be its best ally. The United States, as the world’s largest and most powerful democracy, remains, for all its flaws, the world’s best hope for the promotion of human rights.”
Applebaum is throwing away any chance of being viewed as a person who observes the world with her eyes open. So long as the Administration is taking the actions it has at Guantanamo, Bagram, et al., and denying that it does so, and promoting the very people who justify such actions, believing that the United States will reform itself is little different than believing one can fly.
Like the Cold War, the war on terrorism is an ideological war, one that we will “win” when our opponents give up and join us, just like the East Germans who streamed over the Berlin Wall. But if the young people of the Arab world are to reject radical Islam…
Applebaum is an idiot. Assymetrical warfare will not disappear – ever – as its use is not an ideological decision but a tactical one, nor is terrorism limited to the Arab world, nor is it its use necessarily linked with fundamentalist religions.
The rest of the points in your post has already been discussed here to the point of boredom. Start looking for a new hobby.
Oh, please. Applebaum is a leading authority on authoritarian repression in general and the gulags in particular. Ignore her at peril of your public esteem, not hers.
Yes, there is good and evil in the world, and there is good and evil in the US. But in order for the good to prevail, the evil must be called out and spotlighted. These abuses have been known for a couple years now and what has been done. A few grunts have gone to jail, a National Guard brigadier has been reprimanded and the Administration continues its defense of the practices. If Amnesty has turned the light up a little brighter, good for them.
“But also do not forget that there is good and evil in the world, and that we — the free societies of the North, South, East, and West — are the good.”
Then we damn well better start acting like it, oughtn’t we?
Oh, please. Applebaum is a leading authority on authoritarian repression in general and the gulags in particular. Ignore her at peril of your public esteem, not hers.
Got any arguments that aren’t textbook definitions of fallacies?
I agree with Tacitus regarding Applebaum’s general stature and qualifications for talking about this sort of thing. That said, I find nothing to disagree with in felix’s particular criticism of the particular statement he quoted. In fact, I think it’s rather on point, and if Tacitus has a counterargument, I’d like to hear it.
Because, lord knows, they were making great progress at getting the “American democratic institutions” to address the issue for the two years prior to this report. Give me a break! At least this got the whole sordid, sorry mess back into the headlines for a bit.
” we — the free societies of the North, South, East, and West — are the good. ”
See, that’s a dangerous state of mind. It bespeaks a moral essentialism — the belief that we are Good therefore all we do is Good. Down that road is every atrocity ever committed. More sane is to recognize when we do good, and call it good, and recognize when we do evil (and we have that capacity) and call it evil.
And yipping about AI using harsh words for our murdering people is frankly asinine. The trend of yipping about AI’s criticism for a week and then following it up with ‘but they’re right and these things are terrible’ is doubly asinine. It suggests that your problem is not with the criticism, it’s with the temerity of AI doing it without earning the right to criticize via some sort of test I can’t even imagine.
Still, people who make inappropriate comparisons are as bad as Hitler.
See, that’s a dangerous state of mind. It bespeaks a moral essentialism — the belief that we are Good therefore all we do is Good.
Where do you see that asserted in my post? Indeed, do I not state (expressly, repeatedly) the contrary?
Assymetrical warfare will not disappear – ever – as its use is not an ideological decision but a tactical one, nor is terrorism limited to the Arab world, nor is it its use necessarily linked with fundamentalist religions.
Assume I agree with each of those points, Felixrayman. How does it answer Appelbaum’s (or my or Tacitus’s, for that matter) argument in any way?
AI didn’t “hand” Bush an “easy way to brush off” the allegations. Bush denied the very premise that the U.S. has done anything wrong at Gitmo or elsewhere, and would surely have had an identical reaction if asked about the word you do agree with (“murder”), instead of the one you don’t (“gulag”). The implication that the administration would have been more responsive if AI had just phrased its criticisms in a manner more deferential to the U.S.’s status as “the good” is, forgive me, asinine.
Actually, Sidereal, my beef is with the failure to call things what they are — whether it’s done by Amnesty, the Bush Administration, or anyone.
Either we care about accuracy, or we do not.
The implication that the administration would have been more responsive if AI had just phrased its criticisms in a manner more deferential to the U.S.’s status as “the good” is, forgive me, asinine.
Where do you see either Appelbaum or I caring about whether the Administration would have been more or less “responsive” to an accurate criticism? (Indeed, the advantage of an accurate criticism is that it is accurate — and thus can stick on its own merits.)
Just because you care about accuracy doesn’t mean you’re not Iron Feliks, von.
Amnesty, by misusing language, by discarding its former neutrality, and by handing the administration an easy way to brush off “ridiculous” accusations, also deprives itself of what should be its best ally.
Assume I agree with each of those points, Felixrayman.
If I assumed that, I would be wondering why the heck you found it fit to highlight the sentence you did from the piece you quoted.
Are American proto-facsist and theocrats evil?
That doesn’t cut it, ST. Appelbaum’s not presuming that the Bush Administration would necessarily be responsive to a just criticism of its policies. For she (or I) know, the Administration would continue its policy of promoting those in command while laying the blame for their command errors at the feet of ordinary soldiers. What Appelbaum is saying (and I endorse) is that it’s the height of stupidity for Amnesty to needlessly offend the country that is, by any objective measure, a potential ally.
Yes, speak truth to power; but it does not follow that one should speak untruth to purposefully offend poower.
If Amnesty still believes in its stated mission, its leaders should push American democratic institutions to influence U.S. policy for the good of the world, and not attack the American government for the satisfaction of their own political faction.
I don’t understand this. At least one of our elected branches is responsible for the terrible policies. Applebaum herself is
“appalled by this administration’s detention practices and interrogation policies, by the lack of a legal mechanism to judge the guilt of alleged terrorists, and by the absence of any outside investigation into reports of prison abuse.”
How then is it possible to “push American democratic institutions to influence U.S. policy for the good of the world” and at the same time “not attack the American government?”
If the goal is to publicize abuses, in order to put on pressure for change, then you have to point out those who are responsible. So why does she think it unwise for AI to be critical of the government?
Applebaum’s criticism amounts to a claim that “gulag” is both an inaccurate term and poor tactics. OK. But by joining the gang screaming about that word, she herself is helping those who want to deflect attention from the substance of the report.
von writes,
Never forget our errors, our sins of omission of commission, or our excesses of fear and anger. Never forget the wrongs that have been perpetrated in our name in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and other places whose names and places remain unknown. Don’t leave unanswered the amoralists who purport to the high ground, and who propose that all is justified against an evil foe.
I agree. But memory is not enough. Justice is needed also, and so far there has been precious little of it.
von also writes,
But also do not forget that there is good and evil in the world, and that we — the free societies of the North, South, East, and West — are the good.
I agree with this too, but I think we should prove it.
Felixrayman, write out your critique of my post as if I do not possess mind-reading powers — because they appear to be on the fritz at the moment.
(IOW, I haven’t a clue what you’re getting at.)
Anyone got any other loaded questions they’d like to throw out there? As the largest collection of Pol Pot lookalikes on the planet, we’re all about service.
I like the Crooked Timber take on this, including the comment thread. (Linked at Unfogged.)
“Yes, speak truth to power; but it does not follow that one should speak untruth to purposefully offend power. ”
Like Bush does with Saudi Arabia? Yemen? Jordan? Egypt? Turkey?
They seem to listen to Bush more than AI. Especially since AI is so rude.
AI’s responsibility is to respect the tribal sensitivities of the ruling political classes of the nations it dares speak of?
I don’t understand this. At least one of our elected branches is responsible for the terrible policies.
Her point is that, unlike in the Soviet system, the executive is not the government. That is, any criticism of the U.S. Government must be of the government, which means taking into account the role of our courts and Constitutional guarantees (or freedom of speech, etc.). If Amnesty wants to makes it’s criticism accurate, it must recognize this distinction — but, of course, to recognize that the power of the executive is checked by the Court and the role of a free press would have made its use of the word “gulag” appear even more ridiculous.
Applebaum’s criticism amounts to a claim that “gulag” is both an inaccurate term and poor tactics. OK. But by joining the gang screaming about that word, she herself is helping those who want to deflect attention from the substance of the report.
No. Amnesty did this to itself; I am not required to agree with its lies as a condition to my agreeing with certain of its criticisms.
Felixrayman, write out your critique of my post as if I do not possess mind-reading powers — because they appear to be on the fritz at the moment.
The following sentence is underlined and bolded in your post:
It is not underlined in the article you linked to. I assume you found it important enough to underline for a reason, what was it? I think it’s blatantly false, as are the other premises that follow it.
Like I said earlier, most of the rest of your post contains points that have been debated ad infinitum here already.
Slarti, do you pick your feet in Poughkeepsie?
“What Appelbaum is saying (and I endorse) is that it’s the height of stupidity for Amnesty to needlessly offend the country that is, by any objective measure, a potential ally.”
That’s the fallacy. So long as the Administration acts as it does by, among many other things, “promoting those in command while laying the blame for their command errors at the feet of ordinary soldiers” it cannot be a potential ally. Until then, it is entirely uninterested in correcting what Applebaum and von decry.
AI’s responsibility is to respect the tribal sensitivities of the ruling political classes of the nations it dares speak of?
AI’s responsibility is to truthful and accurate reporting; respect for “tribal sensitivities” — whatever that means outside of “English 341: Reverse Colonialism as motif in the Art and Poetry of Wicker Park’s Gentrification, 1996-2002” is of no moment.
Dang, Phil, that flew clean over my head. But I’m so low that I look up to centipedes.
I have great hopes for large effects from the Abu Ghraib photos soon to be released.
A clue:
When the Swiftboaters did their thing, everyone talked about Kerry
When the NatGuard memos were the story, the left blogosphere talked about Rather
When Newsweek got in trouble, the left blogosphere talked about Koran desecration
The left blogosphere is not talking about AI at all.
This is no longer working.
Von…I have pages I feel I should write in response, but I’ll try to do it here in your thread and not start a new one.
A preference for doublespeak over the dictionary, however, is indeed a slender reed on which to hang a defense.
Thanks for phrasing it that way. It jarred my memory and prompted me to go back to this quote:
That’s from the Amnesty International Report the year before. Further reading of the Secretary General’s message provides exactly what you, and Applebaum and other critics are calling for: neutral, credible, human rights advocates reports…here’s a sample:
Over a year ago they said that, and what good did it do? Did that neutral, credible dialog change any opinions in the US? Did our leadership even pay any attention? Here’s more of what you demand from 2004:
Again, what good did any of that do?
At least in the face of the outrage over the “gulag” term, Americans left and right are admitting we do have a problem.
I’m sorry, but from what I’ve been reading, that represents important progress.
It is not underlined in the article you linked to. I assume you found it important enough to underline for a reason, what was it? I think it’s blatantly false, as are the other premises that follow it.
I emphasized that line because it speaks to the truth of the struggle: Young Moslem men and women will cease to blow themselves up with the current regularity when they see the advantages of a society that is prosperous, free, and governed by secular laws.
Like I said earlier, most of the rest of your post contains points that have been debated ad infinitum here already.
Don’t you understand….this is a war of attrition. If they leap out of the trenches just one more time, you’ll probably concede just to make it stop.
I don’t remember anyone complaining when Reagan and Bush joined Amnesty International to call Saddam Hussein the Hitler of our time, for gassing Kurds and invading his neighbors.
Ed, with respect, more minds were changed on Gitmo and the like by the (accurate) report that the homicide rate was something like 15 times the average homicide rate in an ordinary prison. That‘s what prompted folks like Reynolds and the like to say, “hey, there’s a real problem here.”
AI’s overstatements, on the other hand, has been a huge distraction and I fear that AI has done immense damage to its own credibility.
What does ‘credibility’ mean to you in this context? ‘Gulag’ wasn’t a claim of fact, it was an overstated rhetorical epithet. By saying that AI has ‘lost credibility’ do you mean that you believe: “Because AI used a epithet I consider offensively inapplicable, I will assume that the facts they report are less likely to be correct”? That seems like an odd leap of logic to make — shouldn’t you judge the credibility of their fact claims on the basis of how well those fact claims prove out?
Young Moslem men and women will cease to blow themselves up with the current regularity when they see the advantages of a society that is prosperous, free, and governed by secular laws.
To the extent that this is true — and that lies largely in the ability to convince the people we’re trying to convince that those three things are features and not bugs — in what nontrivial way will that constitute a victory in the “war on terrorism,” as you and Applebaum suggest? Will it also convince, say, the IRA and the ELF to give up just because radical Islamists did?
AI’s overstatements, on the other hand, has been a huge distraction and I fear that AI has done immense damage to its own credibility.
Only in some quarters. Deconstruct, for example, this statement by Applebaum:
“Ordinary” anti-Americanism? Is that really an accurate description of what they wrote? Isn’t “ordinary” anti-Americanism prompted by petty resentments, nationalisms, and misrepresentations by oppressive governments? The kind you’ll find throughout the Middle East or in France? There’s nothing “ordinary” at all about what it took to drive AI to resort to hyperbole to get folks attention. They’re not resenting the US. They are deeply and profoundly horrified by what the US is doing.
You keep coming back to crediblilty, and Applebaum cites the response of the “young people of the Arab world [ready] to reject radical Islam and climb that wall,” but how much credibility do you think AI would have with them if AI hadn’t slammed the US for G-Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, etc.?
Sure it does, von. Applebaum is saying that it is, inter alia, the misuse of language that allows Bush to shrug off the allegations of human rights abuses. She is wrong.
Your subsequent projection of what she is saying is wrong, too – she is not advising AI to avoid “needlessly offending” the US, but rather saying that AI should be less concerned with bashing the Bush administration, and more focused on lobbying the “democratic institutions” of the US to work “for the good of the world.” As far as I know, the Bush administration and the United States are not the same thing.
I emphasized that line because it speaks to the truth of the struggle: Young Moslem men and women will cease to blow themselves up with the current regularity when they see the advantages of a society that is prosperous, free, and governed by secular laws.
That is not the truth of the struggle. Suicide bombers are more likely to be working for secular organizations than religious ones. They are not always Muslim, nor, as Applebaum implies, Arab. They, almost always, have a specific goal of compelling a country to end an occupation of territory that organization sees as its homeland. They do not blow themselves up because they are not prosperous – they are usually more prosperous than average. They do not blow themselves up because they are religious.
They do blow themselves up because they do not see themselves as free, specifically, not free from outside occuptation.
From a NYT article:
Start looking for a new hobby.
Sheesh. I hope not. ObWi would fly off this lurker’s bookmark list so fast it would produce a sonic boom.
About this issue, of speaking the truth to power, I have some strong feelings about it. I don’t know much about the effectiveness of the sugar over vinegar tactic when we apply it at the State level. However, I know personally when trying to bridge common ground with say, some of my close family members who I regard as religious wackos, I try to avoid mentioning to them that I think they are wackos, though I hold this to be true. I could even justify the label, certainly to people who share my viewpoint, and probably to many uninterested third parties. But I have observed its better to just respectfully point out the inconsistances between their beliefs and their actions where appropriate. This gets you pretty far, so long as their belief system are in broad terms, non-evil. I consider their chosen religion to be at its core non-evil, and I have made progress with this route. To the extent I lose patience and abandon this route, progress is non-existant.
Now, considering that States are just large assemblies of individuals, it would seem to follow that what works with individuals would work with them. Just continue to point out the inconsistancies of their belief system to their actions. To the extent one thinks that the belief system of the United States government is non-evil (and I for one certainly think this) this approach should eventually prevail. Calling them gulag mongering wackos would then be not productive. Is there disagreement with this? If so, at what part?
Ted Barlow sums up this “controversy” quite well in today’s Crooked Timber post:
I’m astonished (and I shouldn’t be) that AI’s use of the term “gulag” as a metaphor for a prison camp built on Cuban soil for the express purpose of removing American due process and accountability is causing such a fuss. It’s as if someone used the term “disaster” for Kerry’s presidential campaign, and everyone started harping about how there were no landslides or casualties.
On one hand, we had an organization with a 40-year history of standing up for human rights regardless of borders and ideology, criticizing the United States for holding prisoners without due process and torturing them. Only a fool would deny that this is, in fact, happening. On the other hand, we have an Administration accusing Amnesty International of poor word choice.
pure brilliance.
But Hussein was Hitler, has everyone forgotten how to deal with Hitler.
And Bin Laden, he was Hitler and 9-11 was Pearl Harbor.
And people who ignor Hitler are Chamberlains…AI is Chamberlain.
But that would mean you’d have to stop demonizing your opponents, and where’s the fun in that, I ask you? Now leave me alone, I’ve got heretics to torture and burn.
Seriously (and by now it’s probably getting hard to tell if I ever am serious), Neolith, well put! You should consider coming out of lurkernation more often.
@ von
IMHO what’s grating to some is that Applebaum talks of an ideological war and about having to show one’s opponents something they can admire and then turns around and shows her willingness to focus on the wording of AI instead of the abuses perpetrated in her name.
I mean, to a casual observer this has the distinct ring of attacking the messenger first (for what little it is worth, as a foreigner, I get a distinct ring of “how dare outsiders criticise us in this matter” from all the outrage over AI’s words). In other words, why isn’t she out there protesting the atrocities and the administration that let/helped them happen and continues to do little about it. Why isn’t she devoting her column to forcefully condemning the administration for grabbing the slender reed of “ridiculous charges” instead of addressing the problem? I mean, when I rate these three things: (a) prisoner abuse and torture (b) and adminstration that continues to sit on its hand concerning (a) and (c) bullshit on top of valid ciriticism from a non-profit organisation, I have a clear sense which of these are important, and which are not.
That said, I think on the merits her argument as to what makes the US different is not particularly strong, in that what happened happened, despite the free press and the separation of powers and hence invoking their _intended_ role does not establish the invalidity of the comparison. In other words, whether the media are coerced into following the party line or brainwashed into doing it freely is in some cases a distinction without a difference. Similarly, the judiciary can be a check or a willing accomplice occupied with finding legal loopholes. That said, I agree with the gist of your and Applebaum’s criticism, just wanted to note that I don’t find her argument persuasive.
That said, thanks for your statements in the second half of the post.
The problem is, a group or nation is not “good by nature” but “good by action.” We do good things and bad things, and on balance I believe we do more good things than bad things. When we begin to justify the bad things and excuse ourselves, because “We’re the good guys,” we have a serious problem. The more “bad things” we allow ourselves to do, the closer we get to becoming the next bad guy.
Or do you think that they would find another excuse- any excuse- to belittle and ignore the report?
I’d like to imagine a world in which organizations which issue reports on human rights abuses did not give excuses to ignore and belittle their reports at all. I have faith in the government, that after time and reflection it will eventually do the right thing. I personally believe that using inaccurate terms and hyperbole slows that already glacial process, instead of speeding it up. I might be wrong, but I haven’t seen evidence to lead me to believe that I am.
Edward is right. The real reason, IMO, for AI’s outrageous diction is not to influence the Bush administration. They know that’ll never work. Bush and Cheney are not the intended audience.
They can’t get the President’s attention; they know that. They want to get America’s attention instead. How? Be outrageous!
I think AI trolled us, big time. It’s just like Fahrenheit 9/11. Maybe it is full of baloney, but it sure got people talking. How many people have now learned a lot more details about Gitmo since AI called them a gulag? There’s no way AI could have generated so much interest in their cause by simply ticking off those facts dispationately themselves.
I don’t think anyone will ignore Gitmo because AI called it a gulag, but I think there are a lot of people suddenly paying attention to it (indirectly) because AI called it a gulag.
Not that I’m defending them or anything. If they use this tactic every year, it’ll stop working. I just think they knew what they were doing when they did it, and the (short term) results have been precisely as desired.
Wait…the main point of gulags were that they removed due process? How could I have been so wrong? And the Holocaust, that was just about due process, too! Everything that came after was simply unworthy of notice.
Or, it could be that “gulag” actually means a lot more than deprivation of due process, and this whole equation of Gitmo to the gulags is completely devoid of merit.
Pick one.
Start looking for a new hobby.
Sheesh. I hope not. ObWi would fly off this lurker’s bookmark list so fast it would produce a sonic boom.
JFTR, I wasn’t implying that von should stop posting, merely that he should find something to post about that hasn’t been discussed to death already.
I don’t think anyone will ignore Gitmo because AI called it a gulag, but I think there are a lot of people suddenly paying attention to it (indirectly) because AI called it a gulag.
I think that’s obvious. The question however (as with F911, and all shock and awe tactics) is; has it changed any minds, and started new dialogs? Or has it just increased the volume of existing ones? In watching the ensuing conversations, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of “Wow, I never thought about it that way” and instead a whole lot of “What? That’s absurd!” from one direction and a bunch of nodding and “See? That’s what we’ve been saying the whole time!” from the other.
unlike in the Soviet system, the executive is not the government.
True, though it’s worth noting that Bush and his AG seem to feel that that is not quite accurate – that the President is free to do things like detain citizens indefinitely on his own unquestionable authority.
any criticism of the U.S. Government must be of the government, which means taking into account the role of our courts and Constitutional guarantees
I don’t think it’s far-fetched to characterize actions taken by the executive which are unchecked by Congress or the courts as actions of “the Government.” Congress could have stepped in on extraordinary rendition. It hasn’t, Markey’s efforts notwithstanding.
Amnesty did this to itself; I am not required to agree with its lies as a condition to my agreeing with certain of its criticisms.
No. But there is a question of emphasis. When someone’s main reaction to the report is to focus on one error and comment minimally if at all on the specific abuses described then I think that person can fairly be criticized for trying to deflect attention form the abuses.
I am not accusing you of doing this, von. I don’t have a compendium of your writings on the subject handy. I am accusing Applebaum, based on this column. Perhaps that’s unfair to her and she has written extensively elsewhere on the torture scandals. Still, there are an awful lot of people, including the two at the very top of the American government, who do seem to be trying hard to shift attention to wording.
I’ll grant Amnesty International their “gulag”, given Bush’s inaccurate use of the word “Axis”.
(Especially since the one country that could accurately be described as an Axis of Evil, it would have to be Pakistan, around which the others revolve.)
I’ll grant Amnesty International their “gulag”, given Bush’s inaccurate use of the word “Axis”.
Ahh, but you’re missing the crux of von’s critique, Jon. Amnesty was a credible source before their inaccurate use. Bush had no such constraint.
Von,
How about Amnesty International declares a unit of measure called the “Gulag”, where the Soviet gulag system is 1.0 gulags.
What fraction of a Gulag would you assign to the United States’ network of prisons, secret CIA detention centers, outsourced torture locations, andindefinite-detention brigs?
.5 Gulags?
.05?
(I suppose the scale probably needs to be logarithmic.)
Let’s see: America is holding hundreds of prisoners who’ve been held for 3 years without being charged with a damn thing, but apparently have been mistreated in various ways.
(And remember, being held for 3 years without having done anything wrong is “mistreatment.” If you disagree, I’ll lock you in my basement for 3 years and ask you how you feel after that.)
There are different ways to react to America’s deed, including:
(1) ignore it.
(2) post about how wrong it is.
(3) post about one’s indignation that someone called this setup a “gulag.”
Whereas (1) makes me a little sad, (3) makes me a little sick.
Von et al., please tell us the proper word for “an extralegal camp into which prisoners can be cast and held indefinitely with no meaningful process for years.” I promise to start using it.
I guess the problem with the Soviet Gulag is not so much that it was wrong in principle, but just that it kinda got out of hand.
If fewer people had been subjected to it (and if they’d been in a nice tropical climate maybe?) it would have been okay.
Gulags are okay, this thinking goes, up to a point. Moderation in all things, right?
See, we’re keeping the numbers under control, so even if we do the same exact things, we’re really not bad like that.
“please tell us the proper word for “an extralegal camp into which prisoners can be cast and held indefinitely with no meaningful process for years.””
These days, the term would be “US Military service.”
See, we’re keeping the numbers under control, so even if we do the same exact things, we’re really not bad like that.
No, in fact, we’re virtuous.
Here, have another piece of apple pie.
please tell us the proper word for “an extralegal camp into which prisoners can be cast and held indefinitely with no meaningful process for years.”
I’m part of the et al, I suppose, so I’ll return your request with a question: Why do you need a (probably inflamatory) label for it? If we’re talking about Camp X-Ray, talk about it, if we’re talking about CIA detention centers, talk about that.
I’m part of the et al, I suppose, so I’ll return your request with a question: Why do you need a (probably inflamatory) label for it? If we’re talking about Camp X-Ray, talk about it, if we’re talking about CIA detention centers, talk about that.
Wow, what a clever way to destroy all conceptual thought whatsoever.
Concepts without particulars are empty; particulars without concepts are blind. This applies to moral judgments as well.
But I’m not surprised that some people would be afraid to call such a camp for what it is.
Why do you need a (probably inflamatory) label for it?
Clarity and brevity, perhaps? Why would the label necessarily be inflammatory? Suppose I want to discuss, in general, the entire set of places that Anderson described – what term should I use that is both brief and clear as to the specifics of what is being discussed? If such a label is necessarily inflammatory, what does that tell you?
I think part of the point Neolith is that the USSR had a nice official sounding name for their gulags as well (Main Directorate of Corrective Labor Camps). The irony is that at some point in the future, some organization’s report will most probably refer to some mess of an attempt to control people as the “Gitmo of our times.”
Neolith writes: “If we’re talking about Camp X-Ray, talk about it, if we’re talking about CIA detention centers, talk about that.”
Yeah, because then we might kinda forget that they’re all part of a system, an ethos, a value system, which says it’s pretty much okay if you take an innocent guy, disappear him into a prison system without a trial, beat his legs to a pulp, and let him die, just so long as he’s a kulak.
Er, I mean terrorist.
Edward writes: “I think part of the point Neolith is that the USSR had a nice official sounding name for their gulags as well (Main Directorate of Corrective Labor Camps).”
Nah, I think Neolith wants to keep the places isolated in peoples’ minds, so that it’s more credible when it is claimed that it’s just because of some rogue elements at a low level, rather than being a widespread institutional problem with high-level approval.
If you do that, it helps minimize the problem.
Grrrrr … shouldn’t comment when angry. I withdraw the last sentence of my last comment (3:39 p.m.).
Sigh.
Anyone whose reaction to AI’s report was & continues to be “but it’s not a gulag!” is surely beyond any powers of description available to me.
Jon, is it your contention that Neolith is blessing such activities? If so, please point out where he’s voiced approval. If not, WTFO.
“Jon, is it your contention that Neolith is blessing such activities?”
Nope, not at all.
If you can read Neo’s thought processes to that extent, then read mine. Something about obeying posting rules in regards abusing other posters. Only with hot salsa.
And, in case I didn’t make it clear, personal-foul mind-reading penalty on Jon, 15 yards from the previous spot.
“Where do you see that asserted in my post?”
I quote the passage immediately before my comment.
“Either we care about accuracy, or we do not.”
Of course, but we don’t care about it in a vacuum. Some things we care more about. . things like. . oh I don’t know. . inhumane treatment of human beings, maintenance of the United States standards of moral conduct, and so on.
So when one sees an entire half of the commentariat getting into a kerfuffle over the semantics of ‘gulag’ rather than getting into a kerfuffle over people being murdered, one kind of wonders what the hell is going on.
Only half?
“But he started it first”.
err…or something like that.
Yes, yes, I’m afraid to face the truth of Gitmo, and I’m interested in destroying all conceptual thought. Where’s my 2nd edition Bushionian Newspeak Dictionary? I’d have to consult that before continuing this discussion.
Edward: Perhaps. I’ve yet to hear of something referred to as the Japanese Internment Camps of our day, and I’m assuming you’d agree that was a more egregious and widespread violation of human and specifically American rights? That my way of persuasion only works if the values system of the people you are appealing to is non-evil. So, if you understand where I’m coming from, it looks from my POV that all such comparisons to gulags or Corrective Labor Camps or whatever is non-sequituer.
One of the reasons I stay in lurker mode is that I’m not very articulate in large chunks. Nevertheless, let me see if I can explain: If you live in a non-evil society, you will get more success attempting to persuade rather than demonize. In an evil society, demonization does no good anyway, and you might as well either submit on one hand or revolt/subvert/fight on the other; persuasion would be useless at that point.
Are we, as American’s, past the evil stage? If so, why are we still sitting around talking about it? If not, why do we demonize? I don’t think we’ve got to that point, and am confident that we are beginning to come around on these points, and in five years or so we will have averted cultural disaster once again.
Felix: I agree, it would be saying something if a label were by neccesity be inflammatory. Has it reached that point?
Once again, Neolith says something eminently reasonable and rational. I predict he’ll be roundly denounced for that, which leads me to believe that he is destroying at least some conceptual thought.
Since we all seem to care about meanings, can we now call Islamists “theocrats” instaed of “Islamofacist”?
Or would American theocrats feel all insulted?
Nevertheless, let me see if I can explain: If you live in a non-evil society, you will get more success attempting to persuade rather than demonize. In an evil society, demonization does no good anyway, and you might as well either submit on one hand or revolt/subvert/fight on the other; persuasion would be useless at that point.
Are we, as American’s, past the evil stage? If so, why are we still sitting around talking about it? If not, why do we demonize?
What is “past the evil stage”? We’re not supposed to believe in “evil” any more?
Near as I can tell, Neolith suggests that criticizing Gitmo as, say, bad policy, is rhetorically more effective than criticizing it as, say, a wicked abuse of human rights.
But: (1) Gitmo HAS been criticized as bad policy. Bush is the author of innumerable bad policies, and the verdict is in: he doesn’t really care, and neither do most Americans, Democrat or Republican.
(2) Rhetoric isn’t everything. Calling evil “evil” is a moral act, not just a rhetorical one. Pretending that it’s just pragmatically unsound to lock up suspects for years without due process is apparently what we’re supposed to do. Well, it’s not just unsound. It’s wicked. It’s one of the things the Soviets and the Gestapo were notorious for. It needs to stop, now, whether it’s “sound” or “unsound,” because it is E-V-I-L to do this to people.
NeoDude, I’d suggest you ask someone who’s a theocrat. Let me know what they say.
Are you reading the same Neolith as I am? Because the Neolith I’m reading is saying something to the effect that invective is far less compelling than rhetoric.
Strictly speaking, “Islamofascist” is really pretty far off, given that Islamists don’t seem to be particularly concerned about business. I could be mistaken, but I think Mussolini’s original concept of fascism involved corporate business in some way, allied with the state.
Admittedly, some terrorist organizations make use of business to generate revenue, to launder money, and to camouflage operations.
But I don’t recall anyone saying that the Taliban made the trains run on time, or kindled a business revival in Afghanistan, or anything of the sort.
If you live in a non-evil society, you will get more success attempting to persuade rather than demonize.
This relies on the idea that, questions of evil aside, the parties you are going to attempt to persuade are in a position to be persuaded. By all accounts, the current executive branch is not in that position; their reaction to every account of this issue for three years has been to deny, deflect and distort.
That’d be a fair point, Phil, if the executive branch were a part of this conversation. And as much as we’d like it to be…I’m thinking it’s pretty unlikely.
Are you reading the same Neolith as I am? Because the Neolith I’m reading is saying something to the effect that invective is far less compelling than rhetoric.
Well, it was a genuine question, Slarti. What is “invective”?
If I say that our policy of holding people indefinitely without due process at Gitmo is wicked, is that “invective,” per Slartibartfast?
Please advise.
“That’d be a fair point, Phil, if the executive branch were a part of this conversation. And as much as we’d like it to be…I’m thinking it’s pretty unlikely.”
I don’t quite understand this. Slarti, are you saying that the executive branch was not part of the conversation on AI’s use of the word “gulag”. If so, I am prety sure I can come up with plenty of articles saying the contrary. If not, then what is its relevance to a discussion of AI’s use of the term?
That’d be a fair point, Phil, if the executive branch were a part of this conversation. And as much as we’d like it to be…I’m thinking it’s pretty unlikely.
Um . . . given that the executive are absolutely the only ones in a position to change these policies, I would instead surmise that they’re an indispensable part of the conversation. And they know it, or they would never have said a word about the AI report.
Which is the greater evil at the moment?
1. AI’s misuse of the word gulag to describe what are admittedly horrible practices that are not a gulag.
2. The Bush administration’s policy of promoting abuse while pretending that it is not, which is AI’s point when it misused the word.
It should be beyond obvious what the greater evil is. And the hullabaloo about “gulag” is to some extent the propoganda tool of the abusers in the Bush administration to deflect heat from their odiousness. Just like they game they played about Koran abuse and the Newsweek article.
Applebaum mislabels AI’s posture as “anti-American.” It more likely reflects outrage that the leader of the free world has fallen into such sin.
In other words, AI’s overhearted rhetoric is a lot more excuseable than the opposite by the Bush administration — false denials of the US abuse policy (extraordinary rendition, ghost prisoners, detention without any hearings as required by Geneva, high rates of murder and abuse in detention, memos laying the intellectual justification for such overreach).
At some point, when you are commiting evil, you are no longer good. How much evil does the Bush administration have to commit before we lose the right to hold the mantle of leader of the free? That is the far more important question than misuse of “gulag” by AI.
Part of the reason I visit ObWi is the fact that the posting rules inhibit name calling. I prefer discussion based on facts and reasoning. So, to the extent that AI’s use of the term “gulag” amounts to name calling, I find it disappointing.
This discussion, though, centered on whether AI has damaged itself, hence somehow detracted from the goal of eliminating human rights abuses, and hence bears responsibility and blame for doing so, also disappoints me. It’s analogous to blaming Newsweek directly for the deaths in the riots — a tiny seed of fact surrounded by a huge nut of misdirected argument.
I don’t posses the omniscience to determine what the best tactics are for AI to employ to further the goal of eliminating torture from the world. I don’t think making such a cold calculation is even the right way to proceed.
As others have pointed out, we cannot expect any arguments, reasoned or otherwise, to sway the Bush administration. We can expect that anyone who criticizes the administration will be smeared.
Since I am a self-identified liberal, I expect what I write to be discounted, perhaps ignored.
Some here may wish to read the Poor Man on this subject. The post is titled Sticks and Stones.
This relies on the idea that, questions of evil aside, the parties you are going to attempt to persuade are in a position to be persuaded. By all accounts, the current executive branch is not in that position; their reaction to every account of this issue for three years has been to deny, deflect and distort.
Yeah, that’s the rub. But, Bush and Co. are people. The American people have historically been willing to stomach things when they feel threatened that they later come to regret. Once anger passes, resolution and restitution can occur.
I think it is misunderestimated how angry Bush was about 911, and how that anger interacted with his particular worldview and self-image. In other words, I think that immediately after 911, he was ready to deal death and justice, and if a few innocents got in the way, it was a price he was willing to pay. Many Americans agreed with him.
Many Americans have since started to have second thoughts. I would think, that eventually, Bush will too. Or his second term will end, and change will occur anyway. Either way, I think, because we live in a non-evil and more or less accountable society, we will eventually get it right. And I have to keep coming back to my central point; in that demonization, in that it prolongs the anger/fear that people feel, the anger and fear that motivates them to overlook everything from slight abuses to outright atrocities, is one of the worst forms of debate and discussion one can engage in.
What is “past the evil stage”? We’re not supposed to believe in “evil” any more?
I think we will be past the evil stage when discussions like this are no longer possible or tolerated.
But: (1) Gitmo HAS been criticized as bad policy. Bush is the author of innumerable bad policies, and the verdict is in: he doesn’t really care, and neither do most Americans, Democrat or Republican.
But as follows from my thoughts above, perhaps enough time has not passed. Now, do not think that I’m attempting to justify our national hissyfits, even though justification may be found. It was unjust to throw ethnic Japanese in camps and confiscate their holdings, evil even. However, after the war passed, ammends were made, because we are not at our core an evil society. I don’t know without googling if they were release immediately after the war, or before it was over, or some time after, but it doesn’t matter; only that we did something rash and lived to regret it, without totally losing ourselves. I mean, we didn’t continue to manufacture reasons they should remain behind barbedwire forever. That does not change the fact that while we as a people were warring and raging, people were wronged, and that was evil. Does that make any sense?
(2) Rhetoric isn’t everything. Calling evil “evil” is a moral act, not just a rhetorical one.
I can’t fault that. I just question if we’re at the point where it is both justified and productive to label our actions evil, and to equate us with some of the great evils of the 20th century. I want innocent people out of camps sooner, rather than later, given that they are in the camps right now.
No, I’m saying that…look, can you envision that the use of the word “gulag” had any salutory effect in the administration, WRT Gitmo and the like? I can’t, unless you imagine that it’s salutory that the administration is, if possible, disregarding AI’s opinion even more than it was a couple of weeks ago.
The real conversation is out here.
Which is the greater evil at the moment?
1. AI’s misuse of the word gulag to describe what are admittedly horrible practices that are not a gulag.
2. The Bush administration’s policy of promoting abuse while pretending that it is not, which is AI’s point when it misused the word.
What if 1 brings about a longer duration of 2? Clearly, 1 did not cause 2, and I wouldn’t argue they are morally as culpable, but the course of wisdom then would be to not do 1, right? I genuinely believe demonization subvert noble intents, and as far as I can tell, no body really disagrees with me on this. So why can’t we be critical of our “gulags”, but also critical of people and groups who pour gasoline on the issue, making the fire burn hotter and longer?
Or, what Neolith said. In fact, just ignore everything I’ve been saying, because he’s saying it a whole lot better.
I’d complain more about the outrage about the terminology used to refer to detention-camp-but-no-not-a-gulag Camp XRay, but I just read in the Washington Post that:
I urge more outrage at the term, and look forward to continuous blogger discussion 24/7.
Number one gets us deeper into number two! There is a bumpersticker or t-shirt in there somewhere.
Without a loss in coherency, please.
I’m certainly willing to issue a public statement in the event that AI’s little gambit (assuming it was intentional) pans out. Not that their usage was appropriate, but their wrongness will have had precisely the right and desired effect.
Slarti,
“No, I’m saying that…look, can you envision that the use of the word “gulag” had any salutory effect in the administration, WRT Gitmo and the like? I can’t, unless you imagine that it’s salutory that the administration is, if possible, disregarding AI’s opinion even more than it was a couple of weeks ago.”
Since I view the chance of the Administration caring about AI’s opinion of its detention centers, regardless of the words AI used, as so close to 0 that any change is immeasuarable, that is not what’s driving my view of this. What has changed is that this is now discussed far more openly than it had been a month ago, largely due to the g-word being used. And that is the only thing that may possibly change whether this blemish on our country’s good name is actually dealt with prior to this Administration leaving office.
In the past week, traffic on Amnesty’s Web site has gone up sixfold, donations have quintupled and new memberships have doubled.
This seems to follow. Because of the outrage, AI has more money and more members. But if they aren’t changing minds, and therefore doing their job of promoting human rights, then we’re talking about reward and justification for counterproductive behavior. Did they?
“I don’t know when Amnesty ceased to be politically neutral or at what point its leaders’ views morphed into ordinary anti-Americanism.”
rhetorical hogwash. pure grade A pro-administration bullshit.
she knows exactly when AI ceased to be politically neutral; it happened when AI so embarrassed the administration that it was forced into sending out its defenders to counter-attack, i.e., once the gulag comment was put in the 4werd.
just look at this thread. why, in god’s name, are we talking about AI’s comment and not talking about the LIES that Busch and Cheney told in response? Why is AI’s rhetoric unacceptable, but the Bush/Cheney/Applebaum rhetoric is not?
how many reports on the american gulag have sunk without a trace? what were the consequences of the Taguba report? why isn’t General Miller facing war crimes charges?
Von, i am well aware that you are not an administration apologist. but christ on a crutch you are focusing on the wrong issue.
what is the quantum of misery before “gulag” becomes appropriate? how many deaths? beatings? torture? due process violations? [This is not a rhetorical question; does “gulag” like “holocaust” belong to one historical event only or can it be used in other circumstances? If so, when?]
what the hell ever happened to holding ourselves to a higher standard?
Shorter Anne Applebaum: Although the two situations are similar in numerous particular details, there are still some constraints on the US ability to to do whatever it wants at Gitmo (and similar camps elsewhere) which did not apply to the Soviet gulag. That means that Gitmo is different “in character” from a gulag, and therefore AI’s use of that term proves that AI is anti-American.
Another brilliant scholar without a lick of common sense. Or in the immortal words of Bill the Cat: Ththbbthttbt!
Tac: it’s very kind of you to speak for the entirety of the public on the matter of what merits esteem. If you weren’t around to tell us how public esteem works I might have blithely gone my way thinking that I hadn’t just lost some.
von: I, like Anderson, would like to know the correct word for “an extralegal camp into which prisoners can be cast and held indefinitely with no meaningful process for years.”
I’m certainly willing to issue a public statement in the event that AI’s little gambit (assuming it was intentional) pans out. Not that their usage was appropriate, but their wrongness will have had precisely the right and desired effect.
When and if this happens, consider my name attached to the public statement. It will also profoundly alter how I view the effects of debate and discussion on public policy, and force me to totally re-evaluate how I approach politics in general. Won’t be the first time.
Congrats to von on creating a working time machine. The ability to put me right back in the thick of things previously argued is really stunning.
Applebaum notes
Sometimes these reports were remarkably detailed, testifying to the extraordinary ability of prisoners to smuggle out their stories.
One could assume that we do secrecy better than the Soviets (yay, we’re No.1!), or that the level of inventiveness on the part of our prisoners is not as high as it used to be. (not like the good old days!)
I, like Anderson, would like to know the correct word for “an extralegal camp into which prisoners can be cast and held indefinitely with no meaningful process for years.”
“Afghan Outreach Centres”?
Some of you might want to consider that Anne Applebaum has done a little research into the matter of gulags, and may just know one when she sees one.
radish: I, like Anderson, would like to know the correct word for “an extralegal camp into which prisoners can be cast and held indefinitely with no meaningful process for years.”
So would I, Radish, but since Von has utterly ignored all the responses he got from people protesting his focus on AI’s use of the word “gulag”, I suspect none of us are going to get an answer: Von’s writing on this topic indicates that he is far more interested in slamming Amnesty for using “the wrong word” than he is in slamming the administration for setting up “an extralegal camp into which prisoners can be cast and held indefinitely with no meaningful process for years.”
“Afghan Outreach Centres”?
Faith-based detention processing centers
Applebaum writes:
The argument here, that by making a polemical and faulty identification (guantanamo=gulag) AI has ceased to be a politically neutral agency and has instead become anti-American seems to be missing quite a few parts of the argument. How is this statement in itself anti-American? How is it implicitly political in a way that calling the USSR a totalitarian state is not? It seems that the objection here is actually to AI’s use of emotionally affective rhetoric. It is anti-American only in that it is a loaded term. Nowhere in this comparison is there any notion that the US is full of bad people who should not exist. Nowhere in this language is there a message that we should seek regime change. Anyone who reads the AI statement as either of these things is inferring it themselves.
Wow. That is exactly the sort of reasoning by which the communist party attacked Camus and threw him out–it is irresponsible to criticize the institution because it makes people less likely to join the cause. The end (ending the oppression of workers/stamping out terrorism) is more important than any messy and immoral means adopted in pursuit of that goal. Ideology must win.
AI is using overblown (and counterproductive) rhetoric, but they are being fought with propaganda.
Slarti,
“Some of you might want to consider that Anne Applebaum has done a little research into the matter of gulags, and may just know one when she sees one.”
That was what I presumed tacitus meant in his early comment, which felix’s response of 1:37 PM dealt with.
Slarti writes: “Some of you might want to consider that Anne Applebaum has done a little research into the matter of gulags, and may just know one when she sees one.”
Yes, we know. But this complaint simply suggests that the Soviets used their gulag too much, rather than that there is something fundamentally wrong about such a system.
ie, would the Soviet gulag have been okay if only half as many people had gone through it? A quarter? 5%?
Is the point that it is permissible to run a gulag if you don’t put too many people through it?
Also, by this argument, you couldn’t call the actual gulag the gulag until it got as bad as we know the gulag eventually got.
What do you call a gulag that’s new, and hasn’t been used much yet?
Neo –
“But if they aren’t changing minds, and therefore doing their job of promoting human rights…”
Isn’t this a self-fulfilling prophecy?
They’re not trying to change the minds of members of the administration. . that’s not how things get done. They’re trying to raise public awareness in order to raise public pressure on the administration, which is how things get done. I don’t defend their use of the word gulag, but the fact is that you have a choice as to whether or not you let that word distract you from the content. You have a choice as to whether you’re going to allow your mind to be changed on this matter, and if you or anyone else chooses not to, the fault does not lie with AI alone.
And do you think that’s really a fair description of the criticism of AI? That their choice makes them insufficiently effective in ending these practices? Or would you characterize it more as defensive and offended?
You forgot inadequately at the end of that last sentence. Per the source:
Neolith, your last few posts are interesting (particularly the long one at 4:37), but you don’t suggest a mechanism by which “we” figure out that “we” overreacted and behaved shamefully. I’d suggest that part of that mechanism involves the interaction, over time, of people who strongly oppose the policy in question with people who are initially either neutral or mildly favorable toward the policy. I’d further suggest that the use of inflammatory language to strongly condemn the policy in question may, at least sometimes, be effective in such circumstances. So when you talk about how “we” figure out that the Administration’s policy on Guantanmo, etc., is abominable, I’d suggest that what we’re really talking about is getting from the current situation, in which a significant minority (40-45%) thinks the policy is abominable, to a situation in which a solid majority (60% plus) thinks it’s abominable. Bush will go to his grave convinced of his own righteousness, but the target audience isn’t Bush, it’s the 20% or so whose opinions need to change to change how “we” as a country view this mess.
Hmmm.. Just curious. Anyone here actually aware as to who comprised the Soviet gulags?
Oops, that line near the end should have said “(40-45%?).” I don’t know what the actual number is, but I’d guess it’s not too far below the percentage of the population that voted for Kerry.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject
Applebaum’s bio is here. Care to tell me what in that bio I should accept as certifying Applebaum as an authority on the influence of radical Islam on terrorism?
“Just curious. Anyone here actually aware as to who comprised the Soviet gulags?”
Pretty much anyone from intellectuals to affluent peasants to Axis POWs in WW2 to common criminals to political prisoners to purged party members.
To some extent the population probably depended on who Stalin thought was plotting against him at that time.
Stan LS: Anyone here actually aware as to who comprised the Soviet gulags?
According to Solzhenitsyn (from what I have read so far in The Gulag Archipelago) pretty much anyone and everyone. The methods and processes he describes there being used to justify filling the gulags are very similar to the methods and processes used to send Iraqis and Afghans and other nationalities to the American archipelago of “extralegal camps into which prisoners can be cast and held indefinitely with no meaningful process for years”.
Uh…felix, she’s not an authority on plumbing (AFAIK, anyway), either. Which is fortunate because she wasn’t being represented as one.
I second DaveL‘s compliment to Neolith as well as his question. I would be interested to know if the “gulag of our times” comment was a slip of the tongue or thought out in advance. It’s clear that being the Red Cross or being Amnesty is not opening any doors, so I’m wondering if Neolith’s (and other people’s opinions) would change based on knowing that.
StanLS
who comprised the Soviet gulags
What do you mean by ‘comprise’? The jailers or the jailed?
Rather funny aside. Are any of those who characterize AI’s use of the “phrase in question” as over the top and worthy of seriously destroying their credibility willing to go through the past 5 years and do the same with every over the top phrase uttered?
If not, then the question is why on earth is there so much focus on this particular incident. Is AI placed on a pedestal by Von, Tacitus and others who have now had their idealism shattered because of a mis characterization – i.e. one single phrase?
I doubt it. So the question really is, what’s Von’s motives here? And the answer doesn’t appear to be “to make AI a better organization”. Rather, it’s to tear it down so that the rest of their well placed, polite and quite to the point criticisms don’t sting as much. It’s a useful distraction to avoid talking about the elephant (or blue whale in this case) plainly occupying the room.
And that, quite frankly, is a piece of honor that Von himself is throwing away.
Sorry for the interruption.
Jes,
According to Solzhenitsyn (from what I have read so far in The Gulag Archipelago) pretty much anyone and everyone.
Why… That sounds exactly like the folks we got at gitmo!
Just in case memory doesn’t serve you well, felix, I’m going to quote Tacitus from way upthread:
Seems pretty straightforward to me, and her bio does pretty much support that claim.
“Care to tell me what in that bio I should accept as certifying Applebaum as an authority on the influence of radical Islam on terrorism?”
Not me. She seems to be entitled to an expert opinion on what a “gualg” is, though.
At this point, by the way, I have to step back and mock the whole debate about the AI use of “gulag.” Yes, AI had a valid-up-to-a-point point in using a flamnatory term to call attention to a genuinely disturbing policy by the U.S. No, “gulag” didn’t accurately describe it, but rather grossly exaggerated it. This is neither wholly good nor wholly bad, and reasonable people will disagree on the ration; having agreed on that, it’s time to move on, in my opinion. Meanwhile, arguing over the accuracy of the word is a distraction from discussing the actual facts, which are far more important than how exaggerated some bad rhetoric aobut the facts are. Myself, I wish everyone might be able to agree that “gulag” has a few points of relevant descriptiveness to the present system, and many other points that lack and distort accurate descriptiveness, and then we might all get back to discussing what actions to actually take, how to handle prisoners, what laws and rights should be applied to them, where this “War on Terror” is going, what resources should be invested, what mistakes should be avoided, and what dangers, all around, are involved. Those are the important questions, in my view, not an argument over fine-tuning the use of the word “gulag.”
But that’s just me. Much as I enjoy debating the best use of words, there are actually more important issues in the world, from time to time.
No one’s got that much time. It’d take an entire government think-tank to make even a wee dent in that pile.
“I’m part of the et al, I suppose, so I’ll return your request with a question: Why do you need a (probably inflamatory) label for it? If we’re talking about Camp X-Ray, talk about it, if we’re talking about CIA detention centers, talk about that.”
I’m a bit late to this, but I think this is actually an important question. I do feel the need for a single label (though I agree that gulag is the wrong choice) because I see them (being deliberately vague) all as part of the same whole. And seeing them as all part of a unified whole, or (more charitably) as all symptoms of the same underlying problem, frightens and appalls me much more than if I thought them a series of basically unrelated incidents. So I’m not sure that it’s an issue of inflammatory labels so much as a marker for two very different ways of perceiving the events, and for identifying a difference which has strong implications for how people assess the issue. And now back to lurking…
Just in case memory doesn’t serve you well, felix, I’m going to quote Tacitus from way upthread:
Applebaum is a leading authority on authoritarian repression in general and the gulags in particular. Ignore her at peril of your public esteem, not hers.
Seems pretty straightforward to me, and her bio does pretty much support that claim.
Who was he responding to when he said that, and what fact about the gulag was in contention at that point that Applebaum could help resolve?
From the Fox News transcript to which Von linked:
-“SCHULZ: Well, Chris, clearly this is not an exact or a literal analogy. [which analogies often aren’t, which is why they are used]
-“But what in size and in duration, there are not similarities between U.S. detention facilities and the gulag. People are not being starved in those facilities. They’re not being subjected to forced labor.”
-“But there are some similarities . . .”
-“And those are similar at least in character if not in size to what happened in the gulag and in many other prison systems in world history.”
These statements are construed as a concession on the part of AI that their “use of the term gulag was wildly inaccurate”? (Von: “Actually, Sidereal, my beef is with the failure to call things what they are — whether it’s done by Amnesty, the Bush Administration, or anyone. Either we care about accuracy, or we do not.”)
Applebaum: “But if the young people of the Arab world are to reject radical Islam and climb that wall, they will have to admire what they see on the other side.”
Yes, if they can only see our side: an appropriate Manichean worldview – one might say the same about rejecting radical American exceptionalism. Why is there never an injunction by folks like Applebaum that Americans try to see things from the Arab perspective? McNamara had a thing or two to say about such willful blindness in regard to Vietnam.
I think it is amusing that some folks think that they can hide things like what appears in the AI report from the world and thus preserve a positive image of the US, an image they then expect others to “climb that wall” to be a part of. These folks are only deceiving themselves. I suspect that the “young people of the Arab world” have a much better appreciation of what is happening in their neck of the woods than most Americans (read some of the Arab newspapers and see what I mean).
Von: “But also do not forget that there is good and evil in the world, and that we — the free societies of the North, South, East, and West — are the good.”
This self-congratulatory bedtime story will get “free societies” exactly nowhere in this “battle of ideas” for hearts and minds because it precludes those who adopt this “good” versus “evil” paradigm from empathizing, that is understanding, the other side. This is the self-defeating blind spot of such an appreciation of the way the world works.
Von: “No. Amnesty did this to itself;”
Hahahahahaha. This is the sort of objectification that absolves one of any responsibility for their own actions. Just like the those detained in Gitmo brought torture on their own heads, I suppose (the “we did not start this war” rationalization by the Administration)?
Von: “I emphasized that line because it speaks to the truth of the struggle: Young Moslem men and women will cease to blow themselves up with the current regularity when they see the advantages of a society that is prosperous, free, and governed by secular laws.”
Seriously, this is really off base. Suicide bombers engage in the behavior that defines them because they can’t see the advantages of a “prosperous,” “free” society??? Good God! This assessment is fundamentally wrongheaded, as I believe Felixrayman pointed out.
Ral: “So, to the extent that AI’s use of the term “gulag” amounts to name calling, I find it disappointing.”
Ral, is it AI’s use of the term or how it has been spun that amounts to name calling?
Is it even worth pointing this out (again):
-AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WILLIAM SCHULZ
FoxNews Sunday, June 5, 2005
And yet we’re devoting so much time and invective on a silly metaphor used by AI. Seems like in the larger scheme of things, it’s just completely irrelevant.
One could, for example, debate whether the “War on Terror” is also a similar “over the top” phrase that has no literal meaning and is actually causing major policy shifts, curtailing of civil rights, and – yes – even torture.
But discussing that would actually put more focus on the very thing we’re trying to avoid focusing on by having this silly debate about the precise meaning of “gulag” and whether the metaphor was appropriate.
Ah, the things we throw away – to coin a phrase.
Stan LS: Why… That sounds exactly like the folks we got at gitmo!
It does, doesn’t it? There was a schoolteacher there for three years, arrested by the Pakistani police for the crime of being a British Muslim in Pakistan at the wrong time; there’s a couple of British businessmen who flew to the Gambia with a mobile phone charger in their luggage that the security at the airport didn’t recognise; there’s any number of Afghan peasants who got captured by warlords and sold to the US for the bounty the US military were paying then on anyone who was called a “Taliban fighter”: there were three British kids from Tipton who’d gone to Pakistan to visit family and went to Afghanistan when the US attacked to see if there was anything they could do to help… Anyone and everyone. No question of process: arrest appears to have been enough to presume guilt. The interrogator’s job, just as in the Soviet gulags, was not to discover if the captives were innocent or guilty, but to discover what they were guilty of – by torture, if they declined to confess without it.
Myself, I wish everyone might be able to agree that “gulag” has a few points of relevant descriptiveness to the present system, and many other points that lack and distort accurate descriptiveness
I’m still waiting to hear what an acceptable alternative word or term would be – a brief, clear term that describes the set of all places where people are held indefinitely without charges, with little or no due process, often in secret, with little or no contact with the outside world, and where they are interrogated, sometimes beaten, often abused or disrespected, and sometimes murdered. Anyone have a short, clear term to use that they think comes closer to describing that than gulag?
Otto:
These statements are construed as a concession on the part of AI that their “use of the term gulag was wildly inaccurate”?
Mr. Schultz admitted that Guantanamo was not a gulag, correct?
Mr. Schultz did not dispute any of the differences cited by Mr. Wallace, which distinguish Guantanamo from a gulag, correct?
Mr. Schultz acknowledged that calling Guantanamo a gulag was a matter of rhetoric, correct?
Indeed, Mr. Schultz merely stated that the abuses at Guantanamo “are similar at least in character if not in size to what happened in the gulag and in many other prison systems in world history,” did he not?
Please, continue quoting Mr. Schultz appearance on FNS; be sure to include the bit where he suggests that Amnesty used the word “gulag” as a publicity stunt.
Von’s writing on this topic indicates that he is far more interested in slamming Amnesty for using “the wrong word” than he is in slamming the administration for setting up “an extralegal camp into which prisoners can be cast and held indefinitely with no meaningful process for years.”
Yeah. Sure. Because I’ve never written on our treatment of the Guantanamo detainees, right? I mean, it’s not like I all-but-called for Gonzales to be disbarred for writing the “torture memo.”
What crap.
Otto and Felixrayman:
Seriously, this is really off base. Suicide bombers engage in the behavior that defines them because they can’t see the advantages of a “prosperous,” “free” society???
Or, more precisely, they cannot see how those advantages will inure to them.
One does not blow oneself up for liberty or prosperity. One fights and dies for those things, perhaps, but one does not kill indiscriminately. No: One blows oneself up for God.
It didn’t seem worth reiterating. I said brilliant scholar mostly because IIRC my parents (both big Solzhenitsyn fans) recommended Gulag very highly. Never read her, myself.
Y’wanna know what I really think? I think hell hath no fury like an expert who sees their particular technical jargon transformed into mere vernacular. Compound that with the sheer screaming terror she would experience if she actually stopped to absorb the implications of the US government disappearing and torturing people, and presto….
AI is clearly at fault here.
Why don’t you just pick one? Of course, there’s the possibility that no one’s going to have the same word-association, but that’s the risk you take when you use a word outside its normal meaning.
Anyone have a short, clear term to use that they think comes closer to describing that than gulag?
Internment camp.
I don’t defend their use of the word gulag, but the fact is that you have a choice as to whether or not you let that word distract you from the content. You have a choice as to whether you’re going to allow your mind to be changed on this matter, and if you or anyone else chooses not to, the fault does not lie with AI alone.
Yes, I totally agree. And note that I think regardless of what happens in the meantime, I still have a gut good feeling that we as a public will do the Right Thing. I’m just arguing accelerating or slowing down change.
Now, having said that, we all do have a choice in how we react to unpleasant truths, or even unpleasant half-truths. However, we’re all human, and we’re biologically hardwired to reject views that don’t reflect our own. Even a fairly open minded person has to on occasion fight the old evolutionary “knee-jerk”. So, my point is, why make it harder? Or do you not think inflammatory dialog does so? We might just have a difference of opinion.
And do you think that’s really a fair description of the criticism of AI? That their choice makes them insufficiently effective in ending these practices? Or would you characterize it more as defensive and offended?
What do you mean? I don’t know about insufficiently effective, but I certainly believe it makes them less effective, which should be enough reason not to do it.
but you don’t suggest a mechanism by which “we” figure out that “we” overreacted and behaved shamefully. I’d suggest that part of that mechanism involves the interaction, over time, of people who strongly oppose the policy in question with people who are initially either neutral or mildly favorable toward the policy. I’d further suggest that the use of inflammatory language to strongly condemn the policy in question may, at least sometimes, be effective in such circumstances.
I think that argument is there, sure, I just reject it due to personal history. I’ve had my mind changed radically at least two times. I don’t want to get too far into details for obvious reasons, but I can say that it was never because of invective or over the top comparisons of the way I think to hitler or slaveholders or whatnot.
I think that once a person reaches a threshold point, your theory may very well be true. That the straw that breaks the entropy of the camel’s back may on occasion be more in the form of a brick bat. But if a person is not at that threshold point, I think its counter productive. And since 99% of the time, 99% of the people aren’t at threshold points, the tactic is overall unsuccessful. Interestingly, another part of human nature makes us susceptable to remembering sucess and dismissing all failure, so I can see where if the brick bat worked for people once or twice, they’d latch on to that as the best method. Or maybe I’m deluded. But maybe I’m just getting too meta.
but the target audience isn’t Bush, it’s the 20% or so whose opinions need to change to change how “we” as a country view this mess.
True. The question then is, do these people react favorably to being forced to admit that America is running a defacto Gulag, even if that term is inaccurate, or at least hyperbole. Does anyone respond favorably to the suggestion that they or their decisions are monsterous? Why not? Because hardly anyone is really a monster. Yet monsterous things still get done. I almost think the trick is to get the truth to sneak up and surprise people, so it slips past their defense systems, ninja like. How does one do that consistantly and successfully? If I knew that, I’d write a book. But I think I’ve pieced together how not to do it. Again, I may be wrong.
is it AI’s use of the term or how it has been spun that amounts to name calling?
Otto, I think both are, though to varying degrees. So much yelling passes for discourse these days, and shock value seems to be used to attract public attention, but I prefer to let Mr. Schulz answer for AI.
Hal, I nominate another phrase as “over the top” and better discarded: “9/11 changed everything.”
No: One blows oneself up for God.
(I should add, lest I be misunderstood, that my personal belief is that most blow themselves up for reasons having more to do with their current mental state than any religious belief. But “God” is the given reason.)
Wow. Looks like the counter-counter-attack of the right is in full swing.
I got to remember these things – if I say ‘that man robbed me!’, and it turned out that he larcenied me, or burglarized me, I’d hate to have some of these people on the jury when I’m sued for slander. I could lose all of my money – like in the movie ‘Under the Tuscan Sun’, which starts out with a women losing her ancestral home to her adulterous husband.
No: One blows oneself up for God.
Care to explain the most prolific suicide bombers, then? The Tamil Tigers? As cited above:
How does that support your argument that it is religion rather than something else motivating suicide bombers?
Internment camp.
Errr, as much as I think that the internment of Japanese Americans was a great stain on the honor of the US, I don’t think any Japanese issei or Japanese American citizens were waterboarded, or strung up from ceilings while receiving multiple strikes to the knee, or were smeared with menstrual blood in an attempt to get information about the Emperor’s war plans. I don’t think you are helping your case here, von.
Internment camp.
Of course, that presents historical problems, in that the last time this country maintained areas that it called “internment camps,” the occupants were for the most part law-abiding American citizens and permanent resident aliens, rather than enemies captured on the battlefield. Still, it’s far closer to the truth than “gulag,” for those interested in honest use of the language.
Y’wanna know what I really think? I think hell hath no fury like an expert who sees their particular technical jargon transformed into mere vernacular.
Bingo. This doesn’t explain most of the response, but I think it explains Applebaum precisely.
I think that once a person reaches a threshold point, your theory may very well be true. That the straw that breaks the entropy of the camel’s back may on occasion be more in the form of a brick bat. But if a person is not at that threshold point, I think its counter productive. And since 99% of the time, 99% of the people aren’t at threshold points, the tactic is overall unsuccessful. Interestingly, another part of human nature makes us susceptable to remembering sucess and dismissing all failure, so I can see where if the brick bat worked for people once or twice, they’d latch on to that as the best method. Or maybe I’m deluded. But maybe I’m just getting too meta.
I think that most people, most of the time, don’t have any settled opinions at all about all sorts of things. With regard to Guantanamo in particular, I think the target audience consists of people who were scared and angry after 9/11, who were generally supportive of “doing something” to make us safer, and who supported Bush because he was “doing something” without looking too closely into a lot of the details of what “something” consisted of. So I think the case for inflammatory rhetoric is that you’re trying to break through a general sense of “he’s doing his best to protect us” with specific instances of “he’s running completely amok.” Which is not necessarily to say that using “gulag” will achieve that, but only that there’s a non-crazy case to be made for it.
Von, what is your opinion on Camp XRay? Good? Or not so much?
Does internment camp imply that the detainees are often interrogated, abused, tortured, held incommunicado, in secret, etc? I don’t believe so.
In fact, the dictionary defines the term as, “camp for political prisoners or prisoners of war”, by which one could mean the Soviet gulag, or the US WW2 camps where Americans detained their own citizens, or also a POW camp that treated all detainees completely humanely at all times. I don’t think the term is helpful – remember here, by at least one dictionary definition, Gitmo does meet the definition for gulag. I thought we wanted to clarify terms, not obscure them further.
Indeed, Mr. Schultz merely stated that the abuses at Guantanamo “are similar at least in character if not in size to what happened in the gulag and in many other prison systems in world history,” did he not?
But, Von, this happens to be true. People are grabbed based on actual or fictitious guilt (often fingered by others with dubious motives), tossed into detention, and kept there for YEARS without due process, and mistreated to some degree once they’re there. Call it the gulag, call it nacht und nebel, call it internment, whatever … it’s un-American, it’s tyrannical, it’s wicked, it’s wrong. And it’s going on right now, courtesy of George W. Bush, commander-in-chief.
Surely you have no problem with the truth, Von?
“Internment camp.” Catchy. Rich with history. I like it!
One does not blow oneself up for liberty or prosperity. One fights and dies for those things, perhaps, but one does not kill indiscriminately.
Unless you are the 8th Air Force or RAF, and your target is Dresden. Or some such.
Well, sure, I’m not saying the case is crazy. I just think its for the most part wrong. I don’t agree with your analysis of human nature, it doesn’t jibe with my experiences, and therefore I disagree with the conclusions you reach, but I don’t think you or anyone is insane for holding them.
But we do agree on many things. For example, I agree with your concept of a people who isn’t the best informed scared and angry and appreciative of someone with perceived moral clarity striding forth and whoopin’ butt. I also agree that they need to see specific instances of this acceptance running amok. The exact point I start to disagree is when you take those specific instances, and put some heat on them. You start with uncomfortable facts and turn them into dismissable hype. And I think that’s wrong.
“Bingo. This doesn’t explain most of the response, but I think it explains Applebaum precisely.”
Posted by: DaveL
I browsed some of Applebaums’s column in Slate (2000-2002), and it sounds right. She’s not a right-winger, so the idea that she’s defending the administration seems unlikely. If somebody knows more about her recent behavior, of course, that’d be more relevant.
Errr, as much as I think that the internment of Japanese Americans was a great stain on the honor of the US, I don’t think any Japanese issei or Japanese American citizens were waterboarded, or strung up from ceilings while receiving multiple strikes to the knee, or were smeared with menstrual blood in an attempt to get information about the Emperor’s war plans. I don’t think you are helping your case here, von.
Yeah–they might as well have been at Club Med.
[sarcasm]
Yeah–they might as well have been at Club Med.
[sarcasm]
That was definitely not warranted, as LJ was emphatically not saying that it was Club Med.
von, I hate to break this to you, but AI’s credibility with potential suicide bombers is even less than it’s credibility with you. The audience you’re worried about doesn’t get its news from AI. When it’s your family and friends disappearing and getting shot at roadblocks you don’t need permission from a highbrow human rights organization to get pissed off.
Internment camps it is then… Let’s agree that the US government runs a network of internment camps and see where that takes us.
Slarti, the whole point is to mitigate that risk by adopting a shared term. If you don’t mind a bit of cussing, I suggest you read this Rude Pundit post — it’s got quite the little nugget of wisdom about primate politics in it…
concentration camp, a detention site outside the normal prison system created for military or political purposes to confine, terrorize, and, in some cases, kill civilians. The term was first used to describe prison camps used by the Spanish military during the Cuban insurrection (1868–78), those created by America in the Philippines (1898–1901), and, most widely, to refer to British camps built during the South African War (Boer War) to confine Afrikaners in the Transvaal and Cape Colony (1899—1902). The term soon took on much darker meanings. In the USSR, the Gulag elaborated on the concept beginning as early as 1920. After 1928, millions of opponents of Soviet collectivization as well as common criminals were imprisoned under extremely harsh conditions and many died.
Ah, good, “concentration camp” it is then. It’s good to be syntactically precise. As an A.I. member, I will urge them to use this term in the futuure when referring to Camp XRay.
Obviously, given that I oppose what’s going on at Guantanamo, I have no problem with the pejorative connotations of internment camp. I would much prefer to call Gitmo et al. a POW Facility but, given that the Bush Administration has expressly found that it’s inhabitants are not POWs, that, too, is inaccurate
“It’s good to be syntactically precise.”
Yes, it is. It leads to clear thinking, limits stupidity, and avoids slander.
That was definitely not warranted, as LJ was emphatically not saying that it was Club Med.
Considering the examples he gave–as opposed to the well-documented hardships of 110,000 loyal Japanese-Americans at the hands of FDR and Earl Warren–you’re damned right it was warranted.
Considering the examples he gave–as opposed to the well-documented hardships of 110,000 loyal Japanese-Americans at the hands of FDR and Earl Warren–you’re damned right it was warranted.
No, it wasn’t. It wasn’t what LJ said, and it contributed nothing to the conversation.
Incidentally, DM and D-P-U-G, what’s your basis for claiming that we set up Camp X-Ray “to confine, terrorize, and, in some cases, kill civilians” (emphasis mine)?
AI’s spokesman was dragged onto the talk shows and allowed to enumerate the circumstances in our illegal prisons that had caused them to use the word. On TV. In public. In front of people who may not have heard it before.
All because they used that word
A word which is not nearly as innacurate as y’all are making out.
Having the Bush administration and their apologists bleating about the word doesn’t make them look good. And it doesn’t really hurt AI, because most of the people who are attacking them didn’t pay any attention to AI anyway. They didn’t pay any attention to decades of AI criticism of Saddam – until it suddenly became useful to use AI data to launch their invasion of Iraq.
I mean, seriously, did anyone decide that holding people illegally in intolerable conditions, sometimes torturing and even killing them, was OK because AI said “gulag”?
Debate it all you want, but we are doing a terrible thing, and it deserves terrible words.
Hey, problem solved!
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush on Wednesday left open the possibility that the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be shut down following mounting criticism from former President Carter and others.
“We’re exploring all alternatives as to how best to do the main objective, which is to protect America,” Bush said when asked in an interview with Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto if he would close the detention center.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, said he did not know of anyone in the administration who was considering closing Guantanamo. He defended the military’s operation of the camp.
Of course, the solution is probably to send the Gitmo detainees to Egypt, Uzbekistan, and similar allies, there to be treated even worse. Though still not in “gulags,” of course.
(N.b. that Bush also just backed down off private accounts, which–who knew?–aren’t essential to trust-fund solvency. Has someone changed Bush’s meds lately? Calling Dr. Morell …)
The exact point I start to disagree is when you take those specific instances, and put some heat on them. You start with uncomfortable facts and turn them into dismissable hype. And I think that’s wrong.
You lost me here. Can you clarify where you think I’m going wrong?
(1) Where did I say that?
(2) Why was Camp X-Ray set up in Cuba, Von?
This is a post written in something perilously close to despair.
I give up.
I have spent the last three years hoping that my country would return to sane leadership. I no longer see how that’s possible. We won’t have verifiable elections, and the precise irregularities that lead observers to examine for systematic fraud in other countries go unaddressed here – it’s ignored or dismissed as conspiracy-mongering. The Democratic Party apparently can’t mount an effective opposition to the president’s policies of war, torture, economic suicide, and class war, and the Republican Party won’t. There are no mass resignations from the party, no groups of well-respected authorities within it persistently pressing their case, no organization to block the president’s actions in these or other areas. Were an effective opposition to emerge, it wouldn’t be honestly reported on.
And the people who are really in a position to do something about it seem mostly interested in arguing about the relevance of single-sentence metaphors.
My country died sometime in the last few years. Possibly 12/12/2000, as others have suggested. I do not, right now, see any hope for the restoration of genuine rule of law or representative government – not enough people want it, not enough to do anything about it, not rather than get distracted by lexical shinies.
I did my part in the last election, and will do so again on specific issues, sustained campaigns, and elections, because my conscience would bother me if I didn’t. But I don’t expect it to work. It’ll take something catastrophic, and I can’t rightly imagine what that would be.
I very sincerely hope that in 2-4 years I can look back and see this as somewhere near the bottom of a dark tide that recedes between now and then.
Sorry, that last post was directed at Von’s “Incidentally, DM and D-P-U-G, what’s your basis for claiming that we set up Camp X-Ray “to confine, terrorize, and, in some cases, kill civilians” (emphasis mine)?”
No, it wasn’t. It wasn’t what LJ said, and it contributed nothing to the conversation.
Your opinion is noted.
Your opinion is noted.
Can I get a bumper sticker that says that?
Your opinion is noted.
You forgot the sarcasm tag.
Your notation is noted.
See, we can all play the snide, dismissive game.
I think it explains Applebaum precisely
especially when Applebaum has noted (this is from the Crooked Timber thread)
I personally think that Applebaum is wrong in this, there were a promulgation of laws by the Nazis to carefully classify conquered territories as parts of the Reich, and then laws to specifically declare Jews as stateless people, who were then subject to no laws (I think it is Hilberg who points out that there are cases of Jews trying to get arrested because as prisoners, they had a certain level of guaranteed rights above those of being a Jew), but the denial of contact (noted to be an effective way of breaking down prisoners by the commandant of Gitmo), the star-chamber quality of the tribunals, the isolation, the torture, the systematic nature (given that we have multiple locations rather than just a few bad apples in one prison), the bureaucratic nature (how, exactly, does someone prove that they are innocent in these situations?) suggests that gulag of our times is pretty close to the mark.
While this is potentially a Godwin violation, I would note that one of the modern strengths that we have found is that we have a much easier time finding empathy within ourselves for the Jews. One of the weaknesses is that we can’t yet see ourselves as Germans.
As a Japanese-American, it would be very tempting for me to cheer von and say that the internment as equally a vile notion as what is going on in Gitmo, but, in exercise, it was not, as some tried to mitigate the effects of the internment. Of course, I know that von followed and supported Eric Muller’s takedown of Malkin’s screed against Japanese-Americans. For someone who is arguing for accuracy in usage, he’s either gotten himself very confused, or he is being disingenuous here.
And Scott, I appreciate the fact that you regard the internment as a terrible injustice. I’d suggest you pop over to Muller’s blog and add your conservative voice to counter those who persistently suggest that the internment was a blessing for the Japanese-Americans, or even consider posting your views on some of the conservative blogs you frequent. If you did post such opinions and I missed them, please let me know some links so I can cite you.
One more question, & then I’m gone for the night:
Where, exactly, is Khalid Sheikh Muhammed?
If I’m his son or daughter, how do I get in touch with him?
Thank goodness he’s not in a “gulag,” is all I can say.
(Remember, folks, some of the people in the gulags were guilty, as doubtless are some of the Gitmo prisoners. Guilt or innocence is not the point. The rule of law or tyranny is the point.)
Regarding the closing of Camp XRay — it’s not a new concept, as they’ve been working on it for a while:
I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide whether removal of due process and indefinite detention without trial (due to insufficient evidence!) on US soil is a good thing or not.
“Internment camp.”
This has usually been used to refer to camps wherein probably innocent civilians, whom are nonetheless susepected of possible enemy affiliation or activity, are kept. Just noting. It doesn’t seem to quite reflect rounding up foreign suspects. Historically.
I think we’ve decided on “concentration camp,” Gary. I was hoping for Ministry of Love, but….
And Scott, I appreciate the fact that you regard the internment as a terrible injustice. I’d suggest you pop over to Muller’s blog and add your conservative voice to counter those who persistently suggest that the internment was a blessing for the Japanese-Americans, or even consider posting your views on some of the conservative blogs you frequent. If you did post such opinions and I missed them, please let me know some links so I can cite you.
My views on Japanese-American internment are a matter of record (though only in comments sections in blogs–it might be hard for me to find any readily available examples), and I wasn’t particularly impressed with what I heard of Malkin’s premises in her book, though I found the “self-hating Asian” rhetoric being thrown her way to be deplorable. I have to ask–do you have any immediate family who were in the camps to whom you have spoken to about the Guantanamo situation? Would they consider their own plight to be closer to the gulag than that suffered by the prisoners at Gitmo? I’d be interested in what they had to say.
As a side note, if Japanese-Americans had been evacuated with ample protection for their property rights (freezing mortgages and compensating the internees for damage done to their property while they were away, as examples), and detained in a location that was not so akin to a prison camp, perhaps it would have been defensible, as a protection against potential violence by angry (and, sad to say, bigoted) neighbors. It still would have been a harsh infringement on the liberties of loyal Americans, but it would have at least been a sign that the government was trying not to cause them any more hardship than was deemed necessary in the face of a total war. Sadly, the effort was not made.
But I think I’ve pieced together how not to do it. Again, I may be wrong.
You’re not wrong.
I persist in thinking that arguments about our present system’s resemblence to the Soviet Union’s gulag, which it clearly mostly doesn’t resemble, is an awful distraction from discussing its actual evil, and that people who want to argue in defense of “gulag” are, in fact, choosing to distract attention away from the actual evil, and that that is very unhelpful. But, again, that’s me. I’d rather address what policy should be about prisoners and such, and what the hell is this “war” we are fighting, and the like, rather than arguing who knows how much about Soviet history. But I can’t pick anyone’s argument but mine own.
“I think we’ve decided on ‘concentration camp,'”
For the present US system? That would seem to be extremely inaccurate, unless we’re engaging in mass round ups of American Moslems.
Frankly, there are so many angry words and incoherent arguments swirling around these threads that I’m presently having trouble trying to keep track of who is making what accusation and who is defending what statement. That might be solely my own problem, and you guys are all coherently making good cases for whatever, but, well, I’m still unclear who is making what point and why. Can we all agree that the present US prisoner/intelligence system sucks and needs to be improved?
Von: “Mr. Schultz admitted that Guantanamo was not a gulag, correct?”
Not correct. He said “gulag” “is not an exact or a literal analogy.” This does not equal “not a gulag” nor does it support a concession that the use of the term was “wildly inaccurate” as you suggested.
-“SCHULZ: I’ve told you the ways in which I think that there are analogies between the Soviet prison system and the United States.”
Von: “Indeed, Mr. Schultz merely stated that the abuses at Guantanamo “are similar at least in character if not in size to what happened in the gulag and in many other prison systems in world history,” did he not?”
So had he mentioned all the rest by name or chosen the title of another prison system, we would not be having this discussion?
Von: “Please, continue quoting Mr. Schultz appearance on FNS; be sure to include the bit where he suggests that Amnesty used the word “gulag” as a publicity stunt.”
I will:
“SCHULZ: Chris, I don’t think I’d be on this station, on this program today with you if Amnesty hadn’t said what it said and President Bush and his colleagues haven’t responded as they did. If I had come to you two weeks ago and said, “Chris, I’d like to go on Fox with you just to talk about U.S. detention policies at Guantanamo and elsewhere,” I suspect you wouldn’t have given me an invitation.”
This is your proof that “gulag” was a “publicity stunt”? AI used “gulag” for the sole purpose of getting on Fox News? This was not a comment on the behavior of Fox News? Schulz’s statement was a comment about the reaction from the right, not about any AI motives for using “gulag.” This gets back to the “Amnesty did this to itself” argument you offered earlier that functions as a way to lay the blame at the feet of AI for this whole flap.
Von: “One does not blow oneself up for liberty or prosperity. One fights and dies for those things, perhaps, but one does not kill indiscriminately. No: One blows oneself up for God.”
While I agree that if everyone thought that this earth was all there is that we’d see a whole lot fewer fundamentalists (on all sides) who were willing to commit suicide. However, I suggest that the difference between “blow oneself up” and “fight and die” is a very slight difference of degree (e.g. check out the actions of those who earned Congressional Medals of Honor posthumously). Furthermore, “liberty and prosperity” and “God” are a whole lot closer than you indicate. Indeed, much of the debate on this topic has focused on the American “gods” of “Freedom” and “Democracy” that exhibit the same hallmarks as religious belief. “One does not kill indiscriminately” for liberty or prosperity? Your assessment here on what motivates people to violence and their behavior while committing it is ill-informed.
Once again: couldn’t we all get behind opposing unconstitutional and nasty behavior at Gitmo and other U.S. rendition and prisoner policies, as our focus, rather than arguing pointlessly over the resemblance to the Soviet system? Which actually matters more? Which might actually help real people first?
M. Scott: the occupants were for the most part law-abiding American citizens and permanent resident aliens, rather than enemies captured on the battlefield.
Are you asserting that the occupants of Guantanamo Bay are for the most part enemies captured on the battlefield, M. Scott? What evidence do you base this assertion on? Please cite.
d+ug
Not so fast, we haven’t gotten agreement from von and Scott who want to go with “internment camp”. We’ve already gotten the argument that conditions are an improvement over where they were, (those Gitmo folks are putting on weight, right?), but soon, we should get the suggestion that there is actually no barbed wire around the camps and that the internees are free to come and go as they please, and that they were put in the camps to protect them from mob violence. I wonder if they will be eligible for the draft if it is instituted. And god forbid they demand an apology 40 years down the road.
Scott, if you could give me any kind of pointer, I would be happy to do the searching through the comments. I’m a pretty devoted lurker and was reading everything I could when Malkin’s book came out, and I don’t recall anything from you, but that’s not saying that there’s not anything. If you could give me a blog where you have expressed these ideas, I would appreciate it.
I have to ask–do you have any immediate family who were in the camps to whom you have spoken to about the Guantanamo situation? Would they consider their own plight to be closer to the gulag than that suffered by the prisoners at Gitmo? I’d be interested in what they had to say.
Ahh, so a necessary component of being concerned about Gitmo is having actual family members incarcerated. So noted. (gee, that does work pretty well) Perhaps I should canvass those I know (my folks are from Hawaii, so they were not interned and it would be the parents of the people I know rather than those people directly) and ask them if they would rather have been in Gitmo than in Manzanar. Based on my own cursory readings, my answer is pretty clear.
Looking forward to those cites.
Gary, my understanding of the arguments of von’s detractors (in this context only, of course), including myself, is exactly that. That we’re sick of seeing the AI report as an excuse to bash AI or get defensively self-righteous rather than excuse to, you know, help real people. I wade into this topic with the admittedly vain hope that this is the last such thread I’ll have to read.
Although some have commented that this debate over the term “gulag” is silly (and to some degree I concur), it is important in the sense that what words one uses controls what one thinks of the objects attached to those words (e.g. Compare “the government of Afghanistan” to “the Taliban Regime” – what are the implications, the value judgments, made by these two labels, how would the application of either one affect one’s perception of that nation before the US invasion?). The “gulag” flap is very much a debate about power and who gets to define the terms, thereby influencing public thought and discourse. I suspect that the reaction from the Administration and some folks on the right against AI is motivated more by a perception that AI is a usurper, an institution who stepped outside its place in the power structure and challenged authority, than a quibble over “gulag” or “internment camp” or any other particular handle. The attack on AI by the Administration is caused by the desire to control public opinion, as one sees reflected in the argument of Applebaum: “they will have to admire what they see on the other side.”
Concentration camp is certainly closer than internment camp. Von’s nitpick about the term “civilians” doesn’t seem to apply, the dictionary defines the term as, “A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions”.
The only problem, of course, is that the term also would apply to the Soviet gulag (as would internment camp), so if the idea is to make the differences between the US military’s prison system for “detainees” and the Soviet gulag obvious, we really haven’t clarified anything yet.
couldn’t we all get behind opposing unconstitutional and nasty behavior at Gitmo and other U.S. rendition and prisoner policies, as our focus, rather than arguing pointlessly over the resemblance to the Soviet system?
Is this the same Gary Farber who, in one of the last few posts on this very topic, objected vociferously to the use of the word “gulag” and went on about it at length? Or are there two Gary Farbers posting here? Or something else that would explain the inconsistency? Perhaps I am misremembering?
I suggest the excluded middle, Otto, which is that it isn’t accurate to give the Admin a pass, while also suggesting that debating the use of the word “gulag” still is a distraction. Myself, I have a lot of bad words in mind regarding our present system that clearly allows for torture and horror and other stuff we wish to disallow.
“Is this the same Gary Farber who, in one of the last few posts on this very topic, objected vociferously to the use of the word “gulag” and went on about it at length? Or are there two Gary Farbers posting here? Or something else that would explain the inconsistency? Perhaps I am misremembering?”
I don’t seem to have much tendency towards multiple personality disorder, so, please do say what you find inconsistent or whatever.
Scott, if you could give me any kind of pointer, I would be happy to do the searching through the comments.
I have to admit–I was curious myself, so I did some Googling when I should have been involved in more productive pursuits and found this and this. Those were the best ones I could find.
Ahh, so a necessary component of being concerned about Gitmo is having actual family members incarcerated.
Not at all–you were the one who made the implied comparison between Manzanar, et al, and Gitmo–I was merely suggesting that the experiences of someone who had actually been in the former might be able to pass on useful insights. I recall once–in a discussion provoked by the use of the word “slavery” to describe life behind the Iron Curtain that many of those who had actually lived under the systems there would disagree with the description (of course, there were many who lived under those conditions who *did* agree with that description, so that ended up as a draw). Since I have no family or close friends who are Japanese-American, I don’t have that kind of resource regarding life in the camps, and was interested in any such information you could pass on based on your own resources.
Can we all agree that the present US prisoner/intelligence system sucks and needs to be improved?
Unfortunately I don’t think we can do that Gary. Some will point to how well fed etc. etc. the prisoners are and say that it doesn’t suck. Others will call it evil and accuse anyone who doesn’t think that way of being evil too.
So, when you ask “which is worse, the camps or what they’re called?” who can tell? I mean, while AI may have indeed raised consciousness of the issue, the ensuing storm seems to be growing to a point where people start to dig in their heels and not support changes, nor listen to facts.
That, I think is Neolith’s point. I also see this thread as an interesting corollary to wonderment of many that there are so few moderate or conservative commenters here at OW. And, indeed, why Moe no longer graces these pixels.
Ahh, so a necessary component of being concerned about Gitmo is having actual family members incarcerated. So noted.
Ya know LJ, I think he asked an honest question that you, out of anyone here, might actually have an answer to.
Before I wrote that sentence though, I thought to write in snideness that it sure was important to you to identify where you lived as a way of preempting any thoughts about your not caring about NK in an earlier thread, but now take offense to a question that may offer you the opportunity to offer information based on where you live. Then I thought that if I’m gonna fight with you, then like Bruce I have lost hope, only in OW.
Bye y’all.
Neolith:
So why can’t we be critical of our “gulags”, but also critical of people and groups who pour gasoline on the issue, making the fire burn hotter and longer?
Somehow I seriously doubt that misuse of the term “gulag” has anything to do with making the Bush abuses worse by “making the fire burn hotter and longer.” The fire will burn hotter because of the evil of the perpetrators and the indifference of those who might check the abuses — not because of bad rhetoric from the critics.
Criticize the “gulag” misuse all you want (it merits criticism just like misuse of “holocaust” or “genocide”), but its still relatively trivial in relation to the abuses.
Frankly, I think its much better policy to be a little forgiving for those who are overheated in reacting to outrage, than to tut-tut for the benefit of the evildoers because their bad behavior has been criticized too harshly.
“Unfortunately I don’t think we can do that Gary.”
Patience, young padawan. Use the force. Okay, just patience.
“Frankly, I think its much better policy to be a little forgiving for those who are overheated in reacting to outrage, than to tut-tut for the benefit of the evildoers because their bad behavior has been criticized too harshly.”
Frankly, I think everyone could be a little forgiving for the sake of engaging in reasonable discussion. But, as always, that’s me. (And there’s always a good case to be made for pounding the evils we perceive elsewhere; all I can say that is left is that we either choose to leave room for discussion or not.)
I don’t seem to have much tendency towards multiple personality disorder, so, please do say what you find inconsistent or whatever.
On other threads, for example, the Did Newsweek Make a Mistake? thread, you engaged, repeatedly and at great length, in a behavior (arguing over the use of the term “gulag”) that you are now criticizing other people for. I believe you in fact initiated that argument, and I believe you in fact disrupted a discussion of exactly what you claim to now want to discuss to initiate that argument. Which would lead to my confusion over whether there were two Gary Farbers, or perhaps a Gary Farber and an anti-Gary Farber.
Disturbing.
Ignorance of Anne Applebaum
+
Ordinary lefty hysteria
+
Ungenerous attacks on von
+
Ignorance of the (actual) gulag
=
This thread.
As an aside for felix, while I appreciate that you can identify the forms of common fallacies, it doesn’t follow that statements adhering to those forms are actually false. Good luck arguing that.
“felixrayman”
We seem to have noticed before that we disagree. Myself, I’ve been generally happy to leave it at that, given that, I, in fact, agree with you about much. But since it appears you don’t want to leave it at that, I shall just sigh and try to live with your sense of my evilness, or whatever. Enjoy.
Irrelevant comment
+
mischaracterization of opponents’ comments
+
sneering tone
=
standard Tacitus comment, again replicated.
the real question is
Whether he really thinks so highly of himself, or is he just threadjacking?
Magic 8-Ball sez: answer unclear; ask again later.
Magic 8-Ball sez: answer unclear; ask again later.
Bwahahahaha.
Excuse me for a moment. Funniest comment in a long time, made funnier by virtue of being, well, spot-on.
As an aside for felix, while I appreciate that you can identify the forms of common fallacies, it doesn’t follow that statements adhering to those forms are actually false. Good luck arguing that.
I didn’t. I argued about your specific statement. There were only two comments before yours, neither of which made specific claims about the Soviet gulags to which Applebaum’s expert knowledge of Soviet gulags would apply. You then proceeded with your argument that Applebaum should be disagreed with at our peril. Textbook example of the form, my foul-tempered fallacy-scattering posting rules-violating little buddy.
We seem to have noticed before that we disagree. Myself, I’ve been generally happy to leave it at that, given that, I, in fact, agree with you about much. But since it appears you don’t want to leave it at that, I shall just sigh and try to live with your sense of my evilness, or whatever
Oh sure we disagree, that’s nothing new. But you seem to even disagree with yourself. That’s what so interesting, in a non-evil but generally amusing sort of way.
As a member of the all-important public, I should state for the record that my previous, second-hand, esteem for Applebaum is rapidly dwindling. First was the painfully twisted argument that because the detainees at US internment camps have been detained illegally or extralegally, comparisons with the Soviet gulag can only be explained by “ordinary anti-Americanism.” Tac’s endorsement — as though Applebaum’s indignation were sufficient grounds to discredit AI — may have dealt it a mortal blow. I’m applying a tourniquet, but it looks dicey.
Like I said — Ththbbthttbt! And let me just add, Hah!
BTW Francis/BRGoRD, that 8-ball comment was hysterical. In a typically lefty sort of way of course…
But also do not forget that there is good and evil in the world, and that we — the free societies of the North, South, East, and West — are the good.
Then why did the president seek to roll back laws contravening torture?
This presidency has resulted in a bumper crop of weeds. Also, Von, as I mentioned before, as long as the government can put you to death for a crime you did not commit (which can happen here) we have a long way to go.
Tacitus,
Since I mentioned it before and got no response, if as you said “any policy is progress toward something what is the president’s efforts to roll back the laws against torture progress towards? The Spanish inquisition? The Dark Ages?
I emphasized that line because it speaks to the truth of the struggle: Young Moslem men and women will cease to blow themselves up with the current regularity when they see the advantages of a society that is prosperous, free, and governed by secular laws.
And not occupied by foreign armies attempting to impose their will upon the populace & steal their National Treasure.
Since I have no family or close friends who are Japanese-American, I don’t have that kind of resource regarding life in the camps, and was interested in any such information you could pass on based on your own resources.
My mother’s family was interned in Poston, AZ, and my grandparents were actually married in the camp. Although I have never spoken with the surviving internees about Guantanamo Bay, it seems clear from what they have told me that the camps were much less restrictive than Gitmo. For example, Nisei could obtain work furloughs in non-Western states; my grandfather left camp to harvest potatoes in Idaho and my great-aunt to do secretarial work in Chicago.
Poston was much more a camp than a prison, although you could still get shot dead if you got too close to the fences or sentry towers, and activities like photography were nominally forbidden. The biggest complaint was being treated as foreign nationals even as American citizens. A Nisei great-uncle was hauled off to the troublemaker camp after asserting that he had rights as a U.S. citizen, and actually got deported to Japan after the war, a country he had never seen.
Most of the residual bitterness revolves around the enforced economic toll of the firesales of Japanese-American businesses and farms after relocation, the injustice of being treated as enemy aliens, and the shame of being imprisoned. The shame in particular made this subject absolutely taboo for decades, so most of these tales only came out in the oral histories recorded as part of the reparations settlement in the 90’s. There were no stories about torture. There were no stories about religious desecration. Most people went home after two or three years.
In short, although the internment camps were indeed a stain on the nation’s honor, and I don’t want to minimize the harm they inflicted, from what I have been told by internees, they were no Guantanamo Bay.
Of course, the solution is probably to send the Gitmo detainees to Egypt, Uzbekistan, and similar allies, there to be treated even worse. Though still not in “gulags,” of course.
Now of course I know that the sentiment behind this statement is in no way similar mine, but it points how hard it is to find a solution for what to do with the prisoners. As I see it:
1) The “gulags” are unacceptable.
2) Rendition is unacceptable.
3) Bringing the prisoners inside borders of the U.S., especially if they are terrorists, is foolish and unacceptable.
4) Simply releasing the prisoners, especially if they are terrorists, is foolish and unacceptable.
I don’t have any solution that is both moral and avoids endangering Americans and the fledgling democratic governments of Iraq and Afganistan. And have not seen any great ideas about how to accomplish this.
Bye y’all.
I hope you only meant that regarding this particular thread, crionna.
DaveC:
4) Simply releasing the prisoners, especially if they are terrorists, is foolish and unacceptable.
Mind if I edit that slightly?
“4) Simply releasing the prisoners, if they are terrorists, is foolish and unacceptable.”
is a formulation I would agree with. But what about the (possibly large) fraction that aren’t terrorists? Are they to be locked up ad infinitum?
At the moment, we don’t really have any mechanism for determining which of the prisoners are terrorists — that is, are guilty of terrorist acts or conspiracy to commit terrorist acts. Without due process, what’s the basis for calling any of them “terrorists”, apart from repeated assertion?
Without due process, what’s the basis for calling any of them “terrorists”, apart from repeated assertion?
True, but I think that for instance allowing KSM to communicate with his family, might allow him to give orders to terrorist cells, and also compromise what human intelligence we have.
Gary Farber writes: “At this point, by the way, I have to step back and mock the whole debate about the AI use of “gulag.” Yes, AI had a valid-up-to-a-point point in using a flamnatory term to call attention to a genuinely disturbing policy by the U.S. No, “gulag” didn’t accurately describe it, but rather grossly exaggerated it.”
I think the extended term “gulag archipelago” is not a bad metaphor for our global network of detention camps and torture chambers, some that we run, some ‘outsourced’.
The number of people involved is vastly different, of course, but no other term expresses the geographical dispersion aspect.
“Internment camp” might begin to describe some aspects of Gitmo, to some extent, but it fails utterly to describe the global network of locations around which we shuttle suspects for treatments of a range of severities.
I submit that AI’s writer may have been thinking of this geographical dispersion, associated it with ‘gulag archipelago’, but wrote ‘gulag’; and that what was in mind when the word was chosen was not “millions of people in camps dying”, but the nature of a dispersed network of sites where people are abused and imprisoned. Thanks to ‘Gulag Archipelago’, I think that geographic aspect is just as prominently assocated with the gulag as is the death toll.
Which is why I think gulag is a reasonable metaphor for AI to use.
Anyway, for all of Anne Appelbaum’s credentials on the subject, nobody died and made her Dictator of Metaphor.
why the Fnck is “gulag” worth talking about ?
is this country (and blogoshpere) so full of short-sighted pedants that the precise definition and connotations of a word used in a report that describes horrible things done in our names with the full authorization of our elected leadership is the interesting bit ?
DaveC writes: “True, but I think that for instance allowing KSM to communicate with his family, might allow him to give orders to terrorist cells, and also compromise what human intelligence we have.”
Okay, there’s one.
What about the hundreds, or thousands, of others? Are they all Al Qaeda’s number-three man?
Jon H: Actually, I think the 27 or so verified murders in the “formerly known as the gulag of our times” actually counts as the people who died and made her dictator of metaphor.
cleek: You’re mistaken. See, this post is how civilized people take a cane to those uncivilized brutes who dare to use harsh metaphors to describe harsh behavior.
It’s the American way.
Well the plus of the discussion, is that this is the first I have heard serious talk about getting rid of Gitmo. I think gulag is clearly the best term in the lexicon as a result. AI was clearly right.
Von,
These torture survivors are remembering the what the US used to be:
If you really believe a metaphor does more harm than the above, I really don’t know what to say. You might also want to take a look at this:
So the “few bad apples” get jail time and the worst the commanders get is a slap on the wrist for one of them.
“formerly known as the gulag of our times”
Would that be “Prince Camps” or “Unpronounceable Squiggle Camps”?
Oh and Janis Karpinski lost her star getting busted from Brigader General to Colonel, the primary reason being for lying about a shoplifting incident. Color me unimpressed.
Well said again, von. Looks like we both read Applebaum.
Rerun Season
Since Von at Obsidian Wings appears to be more outraged by a metaphor than by the activity that led to the creation of that metaphor, I thought I should reprint in its entirety a post I wrote a year ago
Dave: Sorry, I was using you, in the collective plural sense, and not you personally.
Crionna: That, I think is Neolith’s point. I also see this thread as an interesting corollary to wonderment of many that there are so few moderate or conservative commenters here at OW. And, indeed, why Moe no longer graces these pixels.
More or less, and unfortunately, agreed.
Somehow I seriously doubt that misuse of the term “gulag” has anything to do with making the Bush abuses worse by “making the fire burn hotter and longer.” The fire will burn hotter because of the evil of the perpetrators and the indifference of those who might check the abuses — not because of bad rhetoric from the critics.
What do you mean? It doesn’t make the abuse worse, it just makes people who might otherwise think about it dig further into their trenches. Am I not expressing myself clearly?
Neolith- Who are these people you are talking about?
Was there some group of Republicans who were against torture, but changed their minds because AI hurt their widdle feelings? Most Republicans were either making excuses or ignoring the torture issue. You need to present some evidence that this odd group you are talking about exists and is of some significant size, compared to those who havent yet realized that Bush is our torturer in chief, who can be reached with more volume/publicity.
To be clear, I don’t think we should be running around screaming about “look what you morons voted for.” I agree that we should be working to convince, not to demonize. I, too, know how that works. To my lasting regret, I voted for Bush in 2000, and it wasn’t until some time after the invasion of Iraq that I was fully convinced that I’d been completely wrong to do that and shouldn’t do so again.
But I also think there are a lot of people in this country who are or were neutral or mildly supportive of Bush but not deeply invested in the specifics of his policies. We who obsess about politics sometimes forget that most people don’t. And it’s also very, very human to let one damn thing follow another until you end up some place you didn’t start out to be, and sometimes it takes a good whack alongside the head to make you stop and put all these little steps together into a big, ugly picture that you don’t want to be a part of. I’m cautiously inclined to think that something like the “gulag” reference might be effective in breaking through both of those tendencies, so I’m not sure it isn’t achieving what AI set out to achieve. That doesn’t mean I plan to use the word the next time I discuss Iraq with my dad, but only that I’m not sure it was such a huge mistake for AI.
Just to add $0.02, my colleagues and I call the people imprisoned at Guantanamo prisoners, and the facility a prison. Our friendly Navy escort — we are not allowed unaccompanied on any part of the Windward side of the base — corrected us today, calling them detainees. Nope, they’re prisoners, was the response.
-“why the Fnck is “gulag” worth talking about ?”
Cleek,
I sympathize. But, as I mentioned before (7:41) and in light of CharleyCarps’ recent comment, words influence thoughts and thoughts influence actions. Words are not neutral, they are human creations and human tools, and as such are infused with our values, perceptions, ideas. Words also have power (which informs the objectification issue here (an individual, institution, policy, etc., is [blank] because I say it is, because I define what it is using my words defined by me)). Most of those commenting here agree that at least something isn’t quite kosher at Gitmo, et.al. and that whatever might be wrong should be addressed. If we are all to proceed down that road, then we need to get our words right. Should authority figures define the terms of the debate or shall we grapple with these ourselves? Part of this focus on the definition and use of “gulag” may also be the result of a sense of impotence to do anything about it. I suspect most of us are not in a position to do anything directly about the treatment of the detainees (er, prisoners) in US custody, so we are left with having to deal with the things we can influence; the words and ideas.
Otto, that’s probably it. But I’ve never thought of impotence as a team sport. I’m sick and tired and despairing of my country and frustrated beyond expression by so many people whom I’d like to think of as decent, moral people making excuses or simply being willfully blind about the whole thing…
Tonight I’m going to go through my bookmarks list and stick a bunch of entries my hosts file. I need to break myself of this particular endless loop, and either help get something done so that I have a reason to be less despairing or at least have a more enjoyable decadence. I don’t know if this kind of exchange ever does anyone much good, but it isn’t doing me any good right now, so it’s time to step out.
I do encourage others feeling similarly futile to do the same kind of thing. If it’s not helping you in some readily articulable way, stop.
Bubbling away, I see.
Scott
Since I have no family or close friends who are Japanese-American, I don’t have that kind of resource regarding life in the camps, and was interested in any such information you could pass on based on your own resources.
Crionna
Ya know LJ, I think he asked an honest question that you, out of anyone here, might actually have an answer to.
Ya know, I might be a bit more sympathetic if Scott hadn’t suggested that I was calling internment camps Club Med outlets. But if you want information about the camps, (which is a bit strange, given that you wrote “The Japanese-American internment has always been a hot-button issue for me”, which implies some kind of, you know, research) I would certainly recommend that you start with Michi Weglyn’s _Years of Infamy_. I’m half way thru Dave Niewert’s recently released book, entitled _Strawberry Days_, which is also excellent. Densho.org has an excellent bibliography as well as an archive of interviews. There is a sign up procedure, I think in part because many internment revisionists took snippets of the interviews to deny what took place. There is also this articl, which discusses Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga, who worked with Peter Irons, who has the excellent book Justice at War: Story of the Japanese-American Internment Cases. It was these two people who Malkin slandered in her book and only apologized under threat of legal action
btw, in your second comment, while again acknowledging that the internment is a hot-button issue for you, you wrote:
“Apparently anyone who questions the accepted narrative regarding Japanese-American internment in WWII is automatically considered a self-hating Asian, in the eyes of Keith Olbertwit and his faithful followers”
I was hoping for a link didn’t have its impulse in defending Miss Malkin.
A question for all of you who feel that gulag is an unspeakable slur when equated with the set of facilities we have set up. What would it take to make the term’s use appropriate? The government selling hand woven prayer rugs with a made in Gitmo tag? Sub freezing temperatures? A head of state who got kicked out of seminary and then changed his name to some type of forged metal? Facility names with non English consonant clusters? Or is it simply impossible to call it a gulag because we are the US of A, and we just don’t do gulags?
Bruce Baugh,
-“But I’ve never thought of impotence as a team sport.”
Perhaps you haven’t been to the right parties?!
Do you read any Gore Vidal?
Best wishes!
But if you want information about the camps, (which is a bit strange, given that you wrote “The Japanese-American internment has always been a hot-button issue for me”, which implies some kind of, you know, research)
I’ve read any number of general histories of the WWII period that dealt with the subject in fairly substantial detail (including legal history books), but no specifically dedicated works on the subject–that was enough for me to form strong views on the matter. Thank you for recommending the books and articles on the subject.
I was hoping for a link didn’t have its impulse in defending Miss Malkin.
I’d have preferred it if the critics of Ms. Malkin’s work had stuck to the facts (which, as you noted, have not favored her) and refrained from throwing around bigoted nonsense like “self-hating Asians.” As I noted, I was skeptical of Malkin’s premise and the subsequent reviews of the book (which I have not read) have only deepened that skepticism, but Keith Olbermann is a bigoted idiot and there’s no justification for that sort of rhetoric.
Keith Olbermann is a bigoted idiot and there’s no justification for that sort of rhetoric.
I’ve been trying to find out what Olbermann said. My memory is that he called Malkin “a fool” for asserting that Kerry’s wound was self inflicted on Chris matthew’s Hardball (blog and transcript)and I don’t recall him ever referring to her ethnicity. I know it’s rather in the past, but if you happen to know where Keith Olbermann did refer to her ethnicity in a derogatory way, and could give me a pointer, I would appreciate it. If not, I think you should note that your accusation may not be accurate.
Just to add $0.02, my colleagues and I call the people imprisoned at Guantanamo prisoners, and the facility a prison. Our friendly Navy escort — we are not allowed unaccompanied on any part of the Windward side of the base — corrected us today, calling them detainees. Nope, they’re prisoners, was the response.
That works for me as well. And I’d note further that due process is required before we put someone in prison (which is probably why your escorts prefer the word “detainees”).
Von: That works for me as well. And I’d note further that due process is required before we put someone in prison
Von, you know perfectly well that isn’t true: no due process was required before sending several hundreds of people to Guantanamo Bay, nor before sending several thousands of people to Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi prisons. That’s precisely what Amnesty International and other organizations have documented, and I do not believe you deny it.
(which is probably why your escorts prefer the word “detainees”).
I’m sure that is why, Von, but why indulge them in their hypocrisy? Use the right word for the right thing: you’re surely not trying to claim that Guantanamo Bay is not a prison, and those imprisoned there are not prisoners?
Neolith: I want to thank you (as well as Slarti and crionna) for keeping your cool against all the various temptations to lose it. It can’t have been easy.
I do, however, have a simple question — which, to be fair, is the same question that’s been asked of multiple people in this thread, von included, as well as innumerable others, without receiving a direct answer to the best of knowledge — that I’d very much like to put to you. You note above, correctly I think, that
It doesn’t make the abuse worse, it just makes people who might otherwise think about it dig further into their trenches.
The question, then, is this: if Amnesty International had not used the word “gulag”, do you think any substantive change our American policy re Gitmo etc. would have happened as a result? I’m not talking about whether the tactic of calling the system a “gulag” is itself successful — the jury’s still out on that one and, as AI has acknowledged, it’s something of a gamble — but purely and simply whether the AI report would have accomplished anything substantive without it.
And if the answer is yes, what are the specific grounds for this belief?
And although someone already remarked on this upstream, I think it’s worth repeating.
von: But also do not forget that there is good and evil in the world, and that we — the free societies of the North, South, East, and West — are the good.
No. As I said the last time you brought this up, there are no “good societies” or “evil societies”. There are only societies that do good things and bad things. To the extent that a society does good things, it is good; to the extent that it does bad things, it is bad; and that is all.
You need to present some evidence that this odd group you are talking about exists and is of some significant size, compared to those who havent yet realized that Bush is our torturer in chief, who can be reached with more volume/publicity.
I’m more or less to your way of thinking, but this torturer in chief business is nonsense. If you’re thinking your goal is to persuade people of that, and not just to bring an end to unlawful detainment and abuse, you are bound to be dissappointed. Also, I think your demaind for evidence is unreasonable not only because its impossible to do so (find a documented group of moderate republicans or centrists that were hemhawing about all this and suddenly got a stiff upper lip about it due to the AI report. Really, where can I get my hands on information like that?), but because my feelings and impressions stem from personal evidence that I’ve already discussed. In other words, it is a political theory in the sense that I’ve stated my premises, my conclusions, and made predictions based on it. You can either go with it or come up with your own theory (as Dave has) where people can be routinely swayed by innacurate and to the extent one finds it innacurate offensive comparisons. One of us will be right and one wrong, or the actual result may lie somewhere in between or it might just work differently for different people. But here’s a simple test for you: when was the last time somebody exerted influence and changed your mind by making an unfair characterization of you? Has it ever happened? If not, or rarely, why do you think it would work writ large on a populace?
I think another one of my thoughts that aren’t getting across is that for a certain set of the population, they love their country in the mom and apple pie sense, and strongly identify with America as them. This speaks to the “works differently with different people” statement above. Some of these are hardcore, some not so much, but with all of them I think that when people say things like “Bush is running a gulag” they hear “You/me/I/we personally are running a gulag” and to the extent that’s an unfair comparison, they are going to be personally offended by it, with predictable results.
Before you say “good, they should be” remember that our goal is not, or should not be, to offend, but to persuade.
I’ve been trying to find out what Olbermann said. My memory is that he called Malkin “a fool” for asserting that Kerry’s wound was self inflicted on Chris matthew’s Hardball (blog and transcript)and I don’t recall him ever referring to her ethnicity. I know it’s rather in the past, but if you happen to know where Keith Olbermann did refer to her ethnicity in a derogatory way, and could give me a pointer, I would appreciate it.
Had to do a bit of digging, but the piece that made me react that way seems to have been this, linked by a Tacitus commenter who was quite unapologetic about calling Malkin “self-hating” (Olbermann used “self-loathing,” for the record). Unfortunately, the original Olbermann piece no longer seems to be archived.
Of course–even when one forces oneself to look at things from the perspective of the morons who throw around “race traitor” rhetoric–one feels compelled to point out that Ms. Malkin’s ancestry is Filipino, not Japanese. I guess all of those folks look alike to Olbermann and his fellow travellers.
Also, note this piece by Eugene Volokh written around the same time, which painstakingly dissects the idiocy of “self-hating [fill in the ethnic group]” as a concept, and specifically demonstrates the idiocy of those directing it at Malkin.
Of course–even when one forces oneself to look at things from the perspective of the morons who throw around “race traitor” rhetoric–one feels compelled to point out that Ms. Malkin’s ancestry is Filipino, not Japanese.
Which I’ve always found particularly amusing in light of a) Filipino ties to Al Qaeda and b) Ms Malkin’s views on immigration and the WoT. Of course, I’m still betting that part of this is because (I’m guessing) Malkin is Ilocano or northern and the bulk of Al Qaeda connections are in the south, in and around Mindanao, so there’s not nearly as much connection there as many people think… but it’s precisely that kind of slipshod semi-racial quasi-nationalist reasoning that she herself employs in talking about racial profiling, hence my amusement.
True, but I think that for instance allowing KSM to communicate with his family, might allow him to give orders to terrorist cells, and also compromise what human intelligence we have.
After years in custody, what’s KSM going to say? “Execute Order 66”? These people are not Sith lords, folks.
I’m all for every reasonable precaution; what I’m not for is prisoners disappearing into oblivion at the whim of the executive.
I still think that concentration camp is the best description because there has been a lot of effort to make sure the people locked up in there were placed outside of the normal protection by the law. The term ‘gulag’ was probabely used because the report was aimed at North-Americans, a culture were you badmouth people by calling them a socialist – calling someone something that is associated with the USSR seems to invoke additional rage.
IMHO the best strategy is to find a way to determine who might actually be guilty of some terrorist action and who was just fighting to protect themselves or their country. As long as you keep the imprisoned people outside a judicial system you have them in a concentration camp and when IN that facility people are regularly abused or so roughly interrogated that it warrants the torture-label you will see nasty comparisons. Ghost detainees and rendition to torturing countries will fuel that too.
Untill they are tried (preferrably fairly) you will also have a camp that assumes that the people locked up are guilty – otherwise ‘our guys’ would not lock them up.
Had to do a bit of digging, but the piece that made me react that way seems to have been this, linked by a Tacitus commenter who was quite unapologetic about calling Malkin “self-hating” (Olbermann used “self-loathing,” for the record). Unfortunately, the original Olbermann piece no longer seems to be archived.
Thanks for taking the time to find point that out. I would note, jftr, that Olbermann referred to the book as ‘self-loathing’ and not to Ms Malkin as such. I certainly don’t support with the self-hating meme, but I would agree with what Anarch said and ‘self-loathing’ is a pretty good description of that book. I’d also point out that Ms Malkin appears on the VDare.com site (sorry, no links for that). VDare stands for Virginia Dare, who was proportedly the first person of European descent born in America, and the site ‘celebrates’ the notion of America as the home of white, Anglo-Saxons. Thus, it seems very ironic to defend Ms Malkin at all.
Thanks for taking the time to find point that out. I would note, jftr, that Olbermann referred to the book as ‘self-loathing’ and not to Ms Malkin as such. I certainly don’t support with the self-hating meme, but I would agree with what Anarch said and ‘self-loathing’ is a pretty good description of that book.
A book, the last time I checked, is an inanimate object and is utterly incapable of loathing itself. Olbermann’s comment was clearly meant to indicate that Malkin herself was self-loathing and that the book was evidence of it–something that both the Tacitus commenter and Eugene Volokh had no trouble discerning. Also, I’d still be fascinated to know how a book written by a Filipino-American about the internment of Japanese-Americans can be described as “self-loathing” without running afoul of the airtight reasoning in Mr. Volokh’s post that I linked.
As for the rest of your comments, respectfully, you’re throwing around innuendo for little purpose–except perhaps to indicate that your statement that you don’t support the “self-hating” meme is less than completely candid.
Scott
I’m about to leave for the day, but I just wanted to note that I don’t think that my point justifies your response. I merely noted that Olbermann made the object of ‘self-loathing’ a book, rather than a person. (being slammed for pointing this out by someone so concerned about the hypercorrectness of the term gulag is ironic, to say the least). If you are as interested in the events surrounding the internment as you claim to be, I would urge you to check out Muller and Robinson’s dissection of Malkin’s points and reexamine your own notion that Malkin is being labeled as a self-hating asian merely as “another instance of liberals calling minorities who don’t toe the left-wing narrative of history traitors to their race”.
I also take great exception to the line of being ‘less than completely candid’. I note no retraction of the implication that I equated internment camps with Club Med. I find it hard to believe that someone could argue that “If, as Malkin insists, there was substantial evidence that at least part of the Japanese-American community was disloyal, then the actions of FDR, et al, become far more understandable, if still clearly very wrong. If she produces the goods to even that extent, her work has value” without actually investigating the issue at hand, (despite a self-professed interest in the issue) doesn’t have their own problems with being candid.
“Innuendo?” Is it some secret that VDare and Steve Sailer are racialist if not racist? Heck, ask Tacitus about ’em.
I’m about to leave for the day, but I just wanted to note that I don’t think that my point justifies your response. I merely noted that Olbermann made the object of ‘self-loathing’ a book, rather than a person.
Oh, please. A book is an inanimate object and cannot loathe itself–period. You’re leaning on a distinction without a difference to give Mr. Olbermann a figleaf of an out for his bigotry–God only knows why.
If you are as interested in the events surrounding the internment as you claim to be, I would urge you to check out Muller and Robinson’s dissection of Malkin’s points and reexamine your own notion that Malkin is being labeled as a self-hating asian merely as “another instance of liberals calling minorities who don’t toe the left-wing narrative of history traitors to their race”.
Seen those arguments before, and yes, they were rather convincing as to the lack of merit of her book in general–and I note that you seem to be defending the “self-hating” meme after having disavowed it, then taken offense at my skepticism that you had actually done so. How interesting.
I also take great exception to the line of being ‘less than completely candid’. I note no retraction of the implication that I equated internment camps with Club Med.
I’ll retract it as far as it was to be taken literally–but I still believe that finding the alleged events at Gitmo to be a graver violation of human rights than the events of the camps is a bit ridiculous–but you clearly do view the events in the camps as an atrocity. More’s the pity that you’ve effectively trivialized them by elevating Gitmo above them in the scale of historical wrongs.
I find it hard to believe that someone could argue that “If, as Malkin insists, there was substantial evidence that at least part of the Japanese-American community was disloyal, then the actions of FDR, et al, become far more understandable, if still clearly very wrong. If she produces the goods to even that extent, her work has value” without actually investigating the issue at hand, (despite a self-professed interest in the issue) doesn’t have their own problems with being candid.
If you’ll note the date on that comment, you’ll notice that it was made when the book had first come out. As I have suggested, it’s pretty clear to me given subsequent developments that Malkin hasn’t made her case, and that the value that I suggested might be there isn’t. It doesn’t excuse the rhetoric from Mr. Olbermann & Company–rhetoric which you seem to be either minimalizing or half-heartedly defending in spite of your stated disavowal of it. Your right, of course, but I’m not going to pretend I’m not seeing it.
“Innuendo?” Is it some secret that VDare and Steve Sailer are racialist if not racist? Heck, ask Tacitus about ’em.
If he wants to say that Malkin is a bigot–or even a “self-hating Asian”–he should come right out and say it, rather than hinting at it and claiming he doesn’t believe in the “self-hating” meme, as Olbermann and his apologists clearly do.
Fair enough, Scott. Although whatever else one can say, it certainly insinuates that Malkin does not choose her friends wisely.
Jes writes:
I may be misreading Von’s words, but I read him as saying that a prison is a prison and that due process is required for a prison to be part of any system of justice. My reading of Von’s words is that he is duly standing up for calling Gitmo what it is, a prison, where prisoners are held, not “detainees,” and that while there is no due process, there is injustice. I read him as reprimanding the intentions of those who instruct the escorts to use the word “detainees.”
But I’m just going on my reading of his words, and I could be wrong. Perhaps you’re better at reading him, Jes; I couldn’t say.
“I still think that concentration camp is the best description because there has been a lot of effort to make sure the people locked up in there were placed outside of the normal protection by the law.”
Perhaps, because there is some resemblence to the history of concentration camps, but it also introduces another point of controversy, which is that so many people are more or less unaware of the history of concentration camps, and their invention and use during the Second Boer War and Spanish anti-insurrectionist fight in Cuba, and don’t make the invaluable and critical distinction in horror between “mere” concentration camps, and the Nazi death camps. But it’s historically important to recall that although people in the 1930’s and 1940’s knew that “concentration camps” were bad places, they certainly didn’t connect them, with some exceptions, with industrial-scale slaughterhouses.
The root of the whole problem, it seems to me, at least for this five minutes, is the original decision that these guys weren’t to be prisoners-of-war, but something-else. Everything else flowed from that crucial decision.
“I’d also point out that Ms Malkin appears on the VDare.com site (sorry, no links for that).”
Being curious, I went and looked, and although I, as a rule, despise Malkin, and it’s also possible you are referring to other possible contributions she might make to the site beyond the one most immediately visible on my quick and completely superficial glance, what I did see was simply her standard column, copyright, acknowledged by, and supplied through Creators.com, who have a long and reputable history as syndicators (current opinion line-up, although they also do editorial cartoonists and others)). In other words, there’s no particularly visible reason to blame Malkin just because racists also like her work. I don’t know what would happen if she asked Creators to not allow syndication to them, but I suspect it’s unlikely that her contract allows for a personal veto of who buys it (I could be wrong; but my initial presumption, would be that I’m not); conceivably a campaign in which the association becomes bad publicity for both Malkin and Creators might, possibly, get them to refuse said rights, but I really have no idea.
The prisoners speak of “camps,” as they are officially named. Camp Five, Camp Echo, Bravo cell block, Yankee block. One fellow thought that Whiskey block was a terrible name. Un-Islamic. Same fellow was kind of alarmed at the drawing of the young ballerina on the McDonalds bag in which we brought his filet-o-fish sandwich. So we turned it around to let him face the metal rocker dude. Not exactly an impressive cultural statement, but apparently tastier than the “chow” the Navy serves prisoners.
When speaking in broader terms of where they are, they say “Cuba.”
He was probably joking about Whiskey block. I’m quite impressed by my clients’ ability to maintain a sense of humor (and feeling pretty good about my own ability to bring it out of them). It’s a tough situation, but their essential humanity is intact.
Second Boer War and Spanish anti-insurrectionist fight in Cuba….
While Wikipedia appears to have misplaced them, let’s not forget that the second major usage of concentration camps was not in the Second Boer War but rather by the US in the Philippine-American War (a full year before the Boers, IIRC).
If he wants to say that Malkin is a bigot–or even a “self-hating Asian”–he should come right out and say it…
Hell, I’ll come out and say it: she’s a bigot. I usually make a more nuanced argument along these lines but wtf, it’s not like this conversation was all that civil to begin with.
I’ve heard family stories of the Bosque Redondo from elderly Navajo — I’m not sure that concentration camp is exactly the right term, but it was a step in that direction. They were allowed to return home after the treaty of 1868.
I’ve heard family stories of the Bosque Redondo from elderly Navajo — I’m not sure that concentration camp is exactly the right term, but it was a step in that direction.
Yeah, I’ve heard similar stories — usually either Manifest Destiny or postbellum era — but I haven’t read any research on them so I couldn’t say.
“…the second major usage of concentration camps was not in the Second Boer War but rather by the US in the Philippine-American War (a full year before the Boers, IIRC)….”
Both wars started in 1899; although I’ve not looked into details to try to establish any comparative sense of in which month might place the creation of the respective camps or how they grew, given that usage and public knowledge, at least of the time, would seem to be as relevant of detailed dating in fact, I’m not sure it’s either discernable or important which use was the second to use the word in English. (If we want to look further at U.S. history, we can look at the long and sordid history of transfer, war on, and forced resettlement, etc., of the “American Indians,” of course, although they didn’t use the words “concentration camp.)
Scott cites himself, apparently based on the baffling idea that what he said is evidence of his good will towards abrogations of civil rights against Japanese-Americans in WWII:
If, as Malkin insists, there was substantial evidence that at least part of the Japanese-American community was disloyal, then the actions of FDR, et al, become far more understandable, if still clearly very wrong. If she produces the goods to even that extent, her work has value
He was not, he claims, supporting Malkin
Scott, in giving his opinion of my comments:
except perhaps to indicate that your statement that you don’t support the “self-hating” meme is less than completely candid.
Scott on telling it like it is:
If he wants to say that Malkin is a bigot–or even a “self-hating Asian”–he should come right out and say it…
Project much, Scott?
I admit that there is a possibility that you have written soul stirring defenses of the civil rights of Japanese-Americans and that ole debbil Google can’t find them. But if they are so obscure that you yourself can’t find them using Google, you may wish to consider the possibility that you didn’t write them and you are deluding yourself, which I think is more pathetic that actually “not being candid”.
As far as Malkin being a bigot, I don’t know. I personally think she is a media whore who has latched on this as a way of making a buck. That would make you either a racist or a fool for supporting her. (is that clear enough for you? Or would you like to accuse me of not being candid?)
I say that she is a media whore because her previous incarnation was as a libertarian.
As for her and VDare, well, if she doesn’t agree with vdare, she should avoid being described as a notable guest contributor(you do agree that vdare is a cesspit, I hope. Or would you say ‘if they are correct, people should reassess their attitudes towards racism’?
You and Gary may also want to check out her recommendations in this interview.
(those of you here for the ‘what is a gulag’ mud wrestling match might be amused by this quote
(emphasis mine)
You might also note that she has recommended them on her blog, then again, you might argue that some folks will link anything on their blog, so this may not count as an expression of her opinion.
Of course, I’m a bit sensitive, not like these guys
I would also like to thank Scott for demonstrating that having something as a “hot-button topic” doesn’t necessarily demand any knowledge of the topic, just a certain amount of spleen. It explains a lot.