Sorry for the month-long hiatus. It was necessary. In the meantime my volleyball team won 3rd out of 43 in Dallas over the Memorial Day weekend.
While the Amnesty International discussions below have not been very fruitful, and I’m loathe to reopen them, a perfect example of what I have previously argued as their lack of priorities has come to light. Via Captain’s Quarters I find this Annual Report from AI USA’s Executive Director.
The refusal of the US government to conduct a truly independent investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention centers is tantamount to a whitewash, if not a cover-up, of these disgraceful crimes. It is a failure of leadership to prosecute only enlisted soldiers and a few officers while protecting those who designed a deliberate government policy of torture and authorized interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The government’s investigation must climb all the way to the top of the military and civilian chain of command.
If the US government continues to shirk its responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior US officials involved in the torture scandal. And if those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them. The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest as Augusto Pinochet famously did in London in 1998.
Now I have gone on record as being strongly against both extraordinary rendition and US implementation of torture. However, the request to have American officials arrested overseas betrays a huge lack of priorities.
I have searched the press releases for Cuba (see here) and Zimbabwe (see here) to see if I could find a similar requests that foreign governments arrest those who AI believes violates human rights standards, and I was unable to come up with anything. (I engaged in a number of word searches which I think should have captured any such statement and ended up reading dozens of releases and reports if my methodology ends up having missed a key report I apologize in advance, please feel free to look–that is why I am providing the links). Whatever one thinks about rendition or US instances of torture, they are like a candle to the sun when compared with Castro’s decades-enduring political prisoner camps for reporters, playwrights and artists or Mugabe’s attempts to literally starve his opposition to death. (I excuse AI from making such demands about North Korea since its leader does not travel). Both Castro and Mugabe have travelled to Europe but neither has been subjected to arrest, and so far as I can tell AI has not suggested that they should be.
Asking for foreign arrest is one of the most extreme things that AI asks for. It does not ask for military intervention to stop abuses (see Iraq or the Sudan) and it has qualms about sanctions which might hit the general population more than the offending party (which is to say almost all sanctions). Why would AI reserve its strongest requests for international action for US abuses while failing to do so for far worse abuses such as those of Castro or Mugabe?
Three reasons:
1. Potential Impact. The United States is a democracy. If a sufficient number of foreign nations were to hold trials and determine that Bush is guilty of war crimes, this might actually tip an election. This, in turn, might very well lead to the dismantling of the concentration camp at guantanamo. By contrast, if several foreign nations were to hold trials and determine that Castro is guilty of war crimes, what difference would it make? He’s not going anywhere. AI may simply be spending its efforts in a place where it might actually matter.
2. The US is a world leader. People look to us to set an example. Therefore, bad behavior on our part is more dangerous than bad behavior on Cuba’s part. If Cuba maintains a concentration camp, people think “ugh, Cuba. I’m glad we’re not like them.” But if the US maintains a concentration camp, people think “maybe it’s okay to do this.” AI may simply be thinking that this needs to be nipped in the bud before we set a global precedent — something that Cuba could never do.
3. It’s more painful. When I was in grade school, I took civics classes in which I learned about the constitution and the founding fathers, and I was very proud to be part of such a great country. Seeing Cuba act badly is sad, but expected. But seeing the US act this way is wrenching. It’s hard to let go of the ideal, the dream of the perfect land. Under such circumstances, it’s easy to lash out at those who brought the dream to an end. I suspect that this is the real reason behind AI’s extreme reaction.
Because the US is an empire involved in military operations outside its borders?
Another pointless deflecting post about the problem of US abuses. These seems to have become beyond an obsession for conservatives.
It is irrelevant that you are on record against the abuse policy. The issue is the following — from the quotation in your post:
The refusal of the US government to conduct a truly independent investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention centers is tantamount to a whitewash, if not a cover-up, of these disgraceful crimes. It is a failure of leadership to prosecute only enlisted soldiers and a few officers while protecting those who designed a deliberate government policy of torture and authorized interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
On this point, you are utterly silent and, in my view, basically complicit because of your silence. Further complicity is in the form of whining about AI’s inappropriate recommendations. What is the point of wringing your hands about awful abuse when nothing is done to address the cause?
If you are truly against abuse, them you must condemn the Bush administration which continues to reward those most responsible for this outrage. Sorry. There is no middling position for conservatives so that they can avoid condemning their hero.
The international trend of having one country arrest and prosecute someone for crimes committed elsewhere is, in my opinion, weird. I think jurisidiction is an important concept, because otherwise you end up with courts more political than legal. I have no support for AI’s call for such action.
However, I am sympathetic to the following. What do foreigners do in response to the outrage of US policy? They have pursued a very uneven policy of extra-territoriality with regard to such matters (Pinochet, etc.), but what other option do they have to deal with that very unruly 800 pound gorilla that keeps crapping in the living room.
Or else you like the neo-con idea of American empire in which we use force and fear to spread our “values.” Freedom is on the march.
-“Why would AI reserve its strongest requests for international action for US abuses while failing to do so for far worse abuses such as those of Castro or Mugabe?”
Agreed: The degree of abuse is part of the equation. But the international power and influence of the abuser is a part as well.
Because the guy’s from Amnesty U.S.A. (I am sure the leaders of Amnesty Zimbabwe and Amnesty Cuba would be equally intemperate and focused on the harms perpetrated by their countries, should those organizations be allowed to exist, the same way Amnesty Canada is all over Canada’s minor-compared-to-ours-and-Syria’s wrongdoing in the Arar case), has a political tin ear or is in a desperate state that one should not compose press releases in?
I don’t know to what extent the British based international Amnesty controls the U.S. chapter; if they do, they should urge it to safeguard the organization’s credibility more carefully and be more consistent. If Amnesty USA really is independent and is supposed to be focusing on the US, they should still think before they speak for the sake of credibility and effectiveness, but I think it’s understandable that they focus on the USA.
You should note, also, that right now they are asking for an INVESTIGATION. They are only asking for arrest if the investigation turns up enough information to support a prosecution. Do you think that is likely? If so, might you have bigger things to worry about than Amnesty’s political tin ear and failure to keep its U.S. director from shooting his mouth off?
Or do you worry that European countries will try to arrest administration officials on trumped up charges? I don’t believe you worry about that; you’re much too smart. Far more likely that they will never start an investigation, and if they do they still won’t arrest a U.S. official no matter what that investigation finds. I doubt even the low ranking officials who participated in the rendition of Osama Nasr from Milan to Cairo or the kidnapping of German citizen Khaled el-Masri to the Salt Pit will ever be prosecuted.
It’s true, it’s bad for the organization’s credibility, and it’s also just plain wrong to focus on U.S. officials rather than foreign leaders who have committed worse crimes–if I worked for them I’d say: okay, we got everyone’s attention with gulag for better worse, now is the time for scrupulous, unimpeachable accuracy and balance. On the other hand, they’re not even making factual errors, so their credibility as to factual matters will not suffer among fair-minded people.
And, I do not deliberately exaggerate. The truth is bad enough, the truth is bad enough, the truth is bad enough; credibility is the only thing my side has in this fight. But part of what motivated my as-detailed-and-temperate series on rendition, which led to my mind-numbingly-detailed and footnoted paper on rendition, was this line from Brad DeLong on the Arar case:
“Impeach George Bush and Richard Cheney. Impeach them now. We are the United States of America. We do not do things like this.”
and this line from Brian Weatherson on same:
“Personally I’ll be disappointed if no one from the administration ends up in jail over this.”
So, while we’re talking about priorities–this press release is an example of why I prefer Human Rights Watch and the ACLU to Amnesty, personally. But I have bigger things to worry about.
One of the things that’s striking about all the posts by Charles, and now this post by you, is that not only is the administration DOING far worse things to people than issuing a badly thought out press release–it’s also acquitting itself very badly indeed in what it’s SAYING about its interrogation policies. Amnesty International has made lousy historical analogies and badly thought out press releases, but they have not gotten the facts wrong and they have certainly not deliberately lied or attempted to mislead people. The administration has, repeatedly, in answers to questions about its torture and interrogation policies.
Perhaps you’re genuinely worried about its credibility because you agree with them and you don’t want conservatives to dismiss them? I don’t believe that for a second of Charles (and Charles, you will not convince me by anything you say in a comments thread, so don’t bother); I might of you. But look–your concern is misplaced. You’re assuming we have a competent press, and we simply don’t, and so their over the top historical analogy was probably a fairly significant net gain in getting their message out; that one word will probably have far more effect than all the words I have ever written and will ever write about rendition.
Anyway, there are much more direct ways to influence U.S. policy than criticizing an NGO you don’t like anyway, in a forum they will not read, in a way that contributes to an overall conservative dismissal of an organization that gets it facts right an overwhelming majority of the time, in the vain hope that Amnesty will issue more temperate press releases, and then when Amnesty stops harshing on us so much compared to Zimbabwe the people who have ignored mountains of evidence of torture by the U.S. will suddenly have the scales fall from the eyes.
Probably you haven’t made all these calculations, and are simply saying what you think and not going through this elaborate calculation about what sort of priorities it shows and whether it will help or harm things. Fair enough. I suspect Schultz did much the same, though he has less excuse–he is speaking for an organization and not only himself, and he is paid and you do this for free.
Here is one of my favorite passages from Georde Orwell:
These things really happened, that is the thing to keep one’s eye on. They did not happen any the less because Amnesty International made bad historical analogies about them or wrote more numerous and harsher press releases about them than about even worse atrocities elsewhere.
“If you are truly against abuse, them you must condemn the Bush administration which continues to reward those most responsible for this outrage. Sorry. There is no middling position for conservatives so that they can avoid condemning their hero.”
You can read my previous writings on the topic or not, your choice. If one can loudly decry the Bush administration torturing dozens while talking softly at most about Mugabe starving thousands, one can certainly both complain about Bush’s administration torturing and complain about a self-proclaimed neutral organization’s focus on far lesser abuses within its area of expertise.
By your logic I could say to you, that if you were truly against intentionally starving thousands of people to death you wouldn’t be focusing on mere torture by the dozens by the Bush administration.
You can be against lots of things. You can talk about lots of things. But if you are an organization which alleges to focus on human rights abuses and you save your strongest forms of condemnation for abuses which are orders of magnitude less than other abuses of which you are aware, it suggests that your alleged focus and your actual focus are not the same.
It is perfectly acceptable to be an organization which used to focus on protecting human rights as a universal goal, but which now prefers to focus on human rights on as relative to how it intersects with criticism of the US. But such an organization shouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t get treated like the non-partisan group that it used to be.
Similarly the US should not be surprised if it loses some of its 1950s reputation of nation you would least mind being defeated by in battle if we don’t treat people well later. Changes in actions change your reputation.
“Or do you worry that European countries will try to arrest administration officials on trumped up charges? I don’t believe you worry about that; you’re much too smart. Far more likely that they will never start an investigation, and if they do they still won’t arrest a U.S. official no matter what that investigation finds. I doubt even the low ranking officials who participated in the rendition of Osama Nasr from Milan to Cairo or the kidnapping of German citizen Khaled el-Masri to the Salt Pit will ever be prosecuted.”
Of course European countries aren’t going to actually arrest anyone. Part of the reason why so called international law is such a mess is that Europe isn’t willing to take real steps against even the worst actors in super-easy situations against weak powers. All the European press about the triumph of the ICC going opening up an investigation in the Sudan just shows how pathetic the whole farce is. The genocide in the Sudan is ongoing right this very second. An ICC investigation does absolutely nothing to stop it–hell Europe won’t even call it a genocide, and the US calls it genocide but doesn’t do anything.
My point is that the very worst that AI can countenance doing against the evil they report (which is admittedly almost nothing anyway so perhaps I shouldn’t care) is reserved against US actions instead of the very serious abuses of Cuba or the mind-blowingly vicious actions in Zimbabwe (and the almost beyond comprehension evil of North Korea).
It is as if a judge had the ability to sentence people to give someone a dressing down, sentence them to 1 month in jail, or sentence them to 5 years in prison. For a murder and rape he gives the criminal a dressing down. For kidnapping he gives 1 month in jail. For burglary he gives 5 years in prison. We would think that something is seriously wrong with his idea of justice–completely apart from the fact that even if he were giving the harshest sentences to the worst offenders he would only be punishing the murder-rapist with 5 years in prison.
You could be against murder-rapists, you could be against kidnapping, you could be against burglary, you could be against all of them and still think that he had his priorities out of whack–especially if he put himself out as someone who was an expert in looking at crime.
Katherine,
I have read your other comments here (and at Discourse?), but this was REALLY good! Thank you.
Is your paper on rendition available online?
correction: it turns out there is an AI Zimbabwe, but they don’t appear to have a website. No AI Cuba.
Again this is the executive director of Amnesty International USA. It is not surprising that he would focus on human rights abuses of the USA. The country chapters are not identical to each other or to the scrupulously accurate London research office that produces that factual reports. All of the websites draw material from those reports, but you also have Amnesty Ireland advertising tickets for a showing of the Rocky Horror Picture Show in honor of gay pride week; Amnesty Canada’s emphasis on the Arar case and especially the Canadian government’s role in it; the EU chapter’s focus on treatment of immigrants and terrorism suspects by EU countries; Amnesty South Africa focuses heavily on Zimbabwe’s horrific abuses and the South African government’s inadequate response, and so on and so forth.
I suspect any excessive focus on the US comes less from some nefarious decision from central headquarters to stop “focus[ing] on protecting human rights as a universal goal” in favor of a “focus on human rights on as relative to how it intersects with criticism of the US” (really Sebastian–what an utterly ridiculous characterization; you deserve everything Randy Paul is going to say about it) than the fact that it has a disproportionate number of members, with a disproportionate amount of resources, living in the United States and like all AI members they tend to care most about the human rights abuses perpetrated by or against their own country.
Sebastian Holsclaw,
Since you have responded to Katherine and dmbeaster, I was wondering if you might also comment on the international power and influence/world leader focus that Josh Yelon and I have raised upthread. This issue has been brought up before and has not been commented upon by posters condeming AI’s use of “gulag.” I would very much appreciate your thoughts on the subject.
Thanks.
“than the fact that it has a disproportionate number of members, with a disproportionate amount of resources, living in the United States and like all AI members they tend to care most about the human rights abuses perpetrated by or against their own country.”
To my knowledge AI US hasn’t focused on atrocities perpetrated against the US. I fully admit that I may have missed statements from the executive director on Daniel Pearl’s murder. What I remember is terse statements like
No intemperate language. Framed of course in its appropriate context on the “Justice Not Revenge: 11 September Crisis” page. Failure to mention that he was called a dirty Jew and not just killed for being a journalist was probably unintentional or out of Amnesty International’s well understood policy of avoiding inflammatory commentary or innuendo?
katherine: the fact that it has a disproportionate number of members, with a disproportionate amount of resources, living in the United States and like all AI members they tend to care most about the human rights abuses perpetrated by or against their own country.
…and that attitude appears to be one that even Sebastian Holsclaw finds incomprehensible. Indeed, this seems to be the common factor among all right-wingers who have posted here, front page and in comments, about AI: they cannot comprehend why Americans would care most about human rights abuses committed by the US: because (from what they’ve said) they care most about human rights abuses committed elsewhere.
“I was wondering if you might also comment on the international power and influence/world leader focus that Josh Yelon and I have raised upthread.”
Sure. If an organization believes that criticizing a world leader in its area of organizational focus is more important than focusing on cases which fall in its organizational focus and are orders of magnitude worse, that is perfectly within the realm of organizational decision-making. Choosing to do that makes an organization which is focusing on criticizing a world leader and doing so in a particular area of focus more than it is an organization which is attentive to its area of focus.
For example I am unsurprised when a highly partisan organization such as MoveOn.org chooses to criticize statements of Republicans while not criticizing similar statements by Democrats. MoveOn.org is set up as a highly partisan organization. Therefore all information I receive from MoveOn.org must be filtered with the fact that I don’t expect them to tell the whole story accurately because their focus is not on reporting, their focus is on Republican-bashing.
That is a perfectly acceptable focus for an organization, but it is also perfectly understandable that I should discount what they say because their mission is not reporting.
If the unstated mission of AI is to criticize the great powers in the arena of human rights in preference to criticizing lesser powers for far worse human rights abuses, that is a perfectly legitimate goal for an anti-great power organization. AI did not (to my knowledge) start off as an anti-great power organization (with its focus when acting against a great power in the human rights arena) and cannily does not market itself as one. But if that is to be its focus, so be it.
Is that what you want its focus to be?
“Not one of those good people whose lives we commemorate September 11 asked to be part of a drama. Not one of them knew that their deaths would trigger
a worldwide struggle. Not one could have imagined all that their dying has come to mean.
For some it has come to mean almost no end to anxiety. For others it has spurred hatred of a debilitating intensity. For many it has given birth to suspicions of the stranger. And for almost all of us it has unsettled our lives.
But out of the ashes of that terrible day have emerged other revelations. That our lives here in the United States are inextricably linked to the fates of others. That terrorism has a multitude of causes. And that our
security is tied tightly to the pursuit of justice. Justice for the victims
of the attacks and justice for the world at large.
For the human rights movement, this past year has brought a special set of challenges. What happened on September 11 was a crime against humanity. Despite all the controversies that have marked the ensuing months, we must not forget that. The people who lost their lives that day were victims of a horrific human rights crime. Our job at Amnesty International is to save
people from such ill fortune. And we, among others, failed.”
excerpted from a statement on September 11, 2002 by William Schultz; link.
Not that this will do any good–if George Orwell cannot convince you I doubt anyone can.
From AI’s current report on Cuba:
You’re a genius, figure it out, OK?
In addition to the above…if you are not an AI member, now is the time to join.
Don’t let those who give lip service to human rights do to AI what they have done to so many other people and organizations. Don’t let them newsweek AI, don’t let them cbsnews AI, don’t let them Swift boat AI. It is too important.
Now is the time. Join or support, and do so vocally.
Sebastian Holsclaw,
Thank you for your response.
First three paragraphs: agreed. But part of AI’s mission is to “campaign” for human rights, not just report or criticize, so that all might enjoy them – in other words to affect change. Wouldn’t focusing on the nation with, arguably, the most international influence be within their originally stated mission and the best way to affect the change they are after? If one wanted to change the behavior of individuals within a company for the benefit of the company as a whole, wouldn’t it make more sense, and still be in keeping with that mission, to more vociferously direct criticism to the CEO than to the janitor? Does AI need to state that it is or is not an anti-great power organization? Can’t it just direct its attention to where if feels it can affect the most change in trying to accomplish its mission?
-“Is that what you want its focus to be?”
I don’t have an opinion on what I want its focus to be – that is for AI to decide. I am not a member.
that is for AI to decide. I am not a member
Why not? Now is the time.
“For the human rights movement, this past year has brought a special set of challenges. What happened on September 11 was a crime against humanity. Despite all the controversies that have marked the ensuing months, we must not forget that. The people who lost their lives that day were victims of a horrific human rights crime. Our job at Amnesty International is to save
people from such ill fortune. And we, among others, failed.”
I’m not sure what you want me to take from that statement. If I quote Bush on democracy are you convinced of his aims? Do you not tell me in almost every conversation that the proof is in the actions? If AI believes that Islamist terrorist attack was partially their failure (which is by the way kind of a silly thing to believe in my opinion) what have they done to address that failure? Perhaps he believes he is attacking terrorism by trying to minimize US abuses? Not ridiculous, but not the same as actually attacking terrorism either.
This follows a fairly common pattern. When speaking of crimes against the United States, AI retreats to generalities. 9/11 was a crime against humanity, but who perpetrated it? Its victims were subject to ill fortune? Fortune? Imagine an AI report on 9/11 if they talked about it like other things they report. We would have an exact numbering of the people incinerated or crushed with a separate accounting of the people forced to choose between fiery death and jumping to streets. We would have as detailed as possible tracing of lines of authority and financial support.
Do we hear how cruel fate tortured Iraqis? Of course not. We hear of the following X people who were tortured by the US government in the following Y ways at the following Z locations with inferences that V people who we aren’t sure about may also have been tortured. Do we see circumspect locutions about those who committed the crimes? Certainly not. Do we see pretense that the crimes were an act of fate? I don’t think so. We see names of people believed to commit crimes. We see organizations AI wants held accountable. We see it in exhaustive detail with huge helpings of hyperbole thrown in as well.
Would a director of Amnesty International ever say “Islamist terrorists are following a pattern of cultural extermination similar in kind if not yet in number to that committed against the Aztecs?” Of course not. AI would never say something so intemperate about an enemy of the United States. But it would say something just as crazy about the United States itself.
Felixrayman, why would I want to join AI? I would prefer to join a group which has its primary FOCUS on doing something about serious human rights violations. What does AI want done about the Sudan? I know it wishes the genocide would stop, but what action (other than waiting until all the people the perpetrators want dead are actually dead) does it want to take? I know it wants the ICC to investigate, but how is that supposed to stop the genocide? What does AI want to be done about Cuba? I know it wants the reporters and artists and playwrights released, but how does it see that happening? You write letters to convince governments to DO something. What is to be DONE? I know that AI would be thrilled if Mugabe was not starving thousands of his political opponents to death, but HOW would AI like that to happen? AI has fallen into the conceit that merely revealing a problem is actually dealing with it. Revealing a problem is merely the first step in dealing with it. But for so many problems, AI is completely unwilling to support any method of acting on the information it provides so as to stop human rights abuses from happening.
Now that I mention it, perhaps I finally understand why it must criticize the US so loudly. AI is philosophically against actions which are necessary to stop very serious human rights abuses. In order to have success at all without betraying its other philosophical understandings, it must not focus to much on the very serious problems.
Felixrayman, why would I want to join AI?
Sebastian, I know that you would not want to join AI. I was not speaking to you.
You’ve got your gun pointed in the wrong direction.
Schulz: “But out of the ashes of that terrible day have emerged other revelations. That our lives here in the United States are inextricably linked to the fates of others.”
One of the most important contributions by Environmentalists (and an aspect of the field I study as well, history): things are connected to other things.
-“what have they done to address that failure?”
If the assumption is that places like Abu Ghraib contribute to the creation or motivation of terrorists, then I suppose they are attempting to redress this problem by trying to get rid of them, perhaps by calling them “gulags” so that folks might be shocked into paying attention? If the GWOT is a “battle of ideas” wouldn’t trying to quash human rights abuses by the US be in keeping with lowering the number of terrorists?
-“but who perpetrated it?”
Aren’t they dead? How can they be held accountable now? If Rumsfeld had strapped a bomb to his waist and run into Abu Ghraib two years ago, I don’t think AI would be trying to hold him accountable today. Also, the terrorists that were involved but did not fly the planes, how would criticism from AI influence them? The mission of AI is to affect change.
-“AI has fallen into the conceit that merely revealing a problem is actually dealing with it.”
But its power to deal with the problems it reveals is limited, so it calls on the most powerful country in the world, much more capable of affecting change than AI, to clean up its act first because it is an opinion leader and its behavior has a much better chance of affecting smaller nations than the other way around . . .?
Felixrayman,
My principle interest in this topic, as in the others to which I have commented, is to understand it. I will leave changing the world to those with moral certainty.
. . . why would I want to join AI? I would prefer to join a group which has its primary FOCUS on doing something about serious human rights violations.
***snort***
You mean like the Republican Party?
My principle interest in this topic, as in the others to which I have commented, is to understand it. I will leave changing the world to those with moral certainty.
The mind boggles at the crimes that would be committed while you wait for moral certainty. At some point, understanding will turn into action, or your quest for understanding is just mental masturbation. One or the other.
Felixrayman,
I don’t think it’s all as simple as your assessment makes it out to be.
-“The mind boggles at the crimes that would be committed while you wait for moral certainty.”
If I were omnipotent, perhaps.
Who says I am waiting?
-“At some point, understanding will turn into action, or your quest for understanding is just mental masturbation. One or the other.”
This “one or the other” dichotomy is just the sort of thing I am skeptical about and that limits understanding. Its acceptance is part of the moral certainty that you find so important. Turning understanding into action is predicated on the certainty of the understanding.
There are other things to question about your response, but this whole line of thinking has the potential to degenerate even more than it already has and is not pertinent to the topic of the post. And anyway, why do you say “masturbation” like it’s a bad thing? 🙂
The refusal of the US government to conduct a truly independent investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention centers is tantamount to a whitewash, if not a cover-up, of these disgraceful crimes. It is a failure of leadership to prosecute only enlisted soldiers and a few officers while protecting those who designed a deliberate government policy of torture and authorized interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The government’s investigation must climb all the way to the top of the military and civilian chain of command.
And the lack of outrage from the population, in particular Republicans and so called conservatives, shows how far we have slipped into fascism.
Sebastian, is there some sort ticket-punching going on that us non-GOP people don’t know of:
“23 (a) Demonstrate willingness and ability to rant at great length and volume about trivialites when needed to distract from GOP administration realities.”
Its acceptance is part of the moral certainty that you find so important
I find it so important?
Mostly I just want results.
Results predicated on moral certainty, or else they won’t be the results you are after.
Results predicated on moral certainty, or else they won’t be the results you are after.
Welcome to the realm of the completely off-topic, otto. Enjoy your stay.
I already said that.
bah. more inane messenger-attacking and wagon circling.
What crimes did you prevent today, felix? Being the Action Hero Crusader that you are, and all.
Ok, that’s just about enough of that. Please reread the posting rules, take a few deep breaths of fresh air, and then try politeness and courtesy. As, you know, REQUIRED by the posting rules.
“Aren’t they dead? How can they be held accountable now?”
Has Donald Rumsfeld tortured anyone? Has Dick Cheney put his panties on anyone’s head?
What an idiot.
…and now Sebastian Holsclaw chimes in with his attempt at maintaining focus on the trivial.
This issue has been rehashed ad nauseum and reduced to the point of redundancy.
I find it sad that none of the main pagers – even the ‘lefties’ – found the time to comment on the following events of the week (courtesy The Carpetbagger Report):
The ongoing insubstantial harping over the perceived bias (or lackthereof) on the part of AI is utterly ridiculous. The amount of time and energy spent arguing trivialities (and, despite the importance of US participation in illegal detention and prisoner abuse, the arguments have overwhelmingly centred on semantic chickenfeed) at the expense of substantive issues is completely unforgivable.
When did ObWi become a single-issue echochamber?
Mattbastard, you might want to consider those lease negotiations occurred under the Clinton Administration, and…hey, I’d be interested in seeing those details, too.
But in the aftermath of those, at least three high-level Boeing execs (including the CEO) have been shitcanned, and I believe Darleen Druyun’s been taken to court; I’ll have to dig up that story in a bit. Oh, and Boeing has taken some (arguably hand-slap) rather large hits by being denied ability to even bid on some contracts.
Oh, and I’m going to delete am’s comment and ban him just as soon as typepad lets me back in, which probably won’t be for another hour. So, Edward, if you see this…
Frankly, Slartibartfast, I could care less about whether the leases were initially negotiated by the Bush or Clinton administrations.
Being Canadian, I have no partisan allegiance to either the Democratic or Republican parties. I directly quoted the text from The Carpetbagger Report, and don’t really agree with the tone of the delivery. I apologize if that wasn’t made clear.
A shady deal is a shady deal, regardless of who was originally responsible. I too would be very interested in hearing further details re: the Clinton admin’s complicity and how the case has progressed.
Hopefully you’ll post your findings to the main page, Slarti. Despite my disagreement with some (if not most;)) of your views, your presentation is always intellectually honest and thought-provoking.
I realize real life takes precendence to online activities. Still, it would be nice to see a new post from you at least once a week.
😉
dammit – i meant precedence, not ‘precendence’.
I r teh smrt.
Welcome back, Sebastian. You’ve been missed.
Even if AI isn’t the best human rights organization, it’s far from deserving this endless bashing from the right for having the audacity to criticize the US. And the Bush administration is far from deserving this continuing distraction from and dismissal of the abuses it’s responsible for.
Charles’s participation is expected, since he gets the memos, but Sebastian and Von don’t — or at least they don’t usually act on them when they get them. I’m mystified about why they consider the errors of AI to be worth this huge amount of attention.
In any case, I’m sending off my donation today.
In every Republican response to these issues that I’ve ever heard, there’s always one line that bothers me most: “Now I have gone on record as being strongly against both extraordinary rendition and US implementation of torture.”
I don’t know what I’m supposed to do with that. Sometimes (as here) it’s sincere, sometimes it’s not. But in every case, the form is the same. There’s the explicit: “I’m against torture.” And the implicit: “But not enough to change my vote.” The line seems to function in precisely the same way as “some of my best friends are black” did back in the day. I assume it’s meant as a badge of decency. But it really seems to say, “This is bad, but not that bad.”
At the end of the post, what have I learned about my fellow citizens (the underlying issue that bothers me most)? That, for voters like Sebastian, all else being equal, they probably wouldn’t vote for someone with Castro’s civil rights record. (Though, let’s admit that’s a “probably”: Castro’s greatest enemy really could take he and his country off the face of the earth, has financed the invasion of his country, as has attempted (I think) a couple of assassination attempts against him. Who’s to say?) This is substantially less comforting than y’all seem to think it should be.
“There’s the explicit: “I’m against torture.” And the implicit: “But not enough to change my vote.””
Well let me declare that I’m not against torture. I don’t advocate it as U.S. policy because from what I’ve seen there is no evidence that it works. However, if it did then I would. As to vote changing had a challenger to the President put forth what I felt was a credible alternative to his national security policy then I would have voted for him. But the impression I got from the opposition during the last election cycle was that they were more interested in being liked by our increasingly aged, weakened and thereby useless European allies than killing terrorists. So I stayed with the guy already in office, warts and all. To the larger question of why there isn’t more outrage over America’s “gulags” the answer is simple- no major terrorist attacks since 9/11. Is detaining these people the reason for that? Probably not. But I wouldn’t expect a serious review of our anti-terror policies until we are hit again.
The issue that won’t go a way…fascinating really, but My very last words on this topic (until the next time):
Credibility is the best weapon AI has in its arsenal, so it’s a pity they’ve lost some through the use of hyperbole, but the measured message they issued in 2003 had zero impact on the US government. In the end, they have a mission. If their methods are not working, they need to change those methods.
I personally gained respect for them because of the gulag term. I think it’s important to remember with regards to Castro or Mugabe that AI called for an “investigation” and not an arrest before then…again a melodramatic way to get their point across, yes, but hardly the smoking gun of having “lost their way” others suggest it is.
If I hadn’t already seen supporters of the war effort attack the Red Cross, if I didn’t see constant attacks on the ACLU, if I didn’t see endless belittling of the United Nations, NGOs who dare to speak out, and every other body dedicated to ensuring equal treatment and equal accountability for all people regardless of whether they were lucky enough to be born in the USA or not, then I might be more willing to believe all this hoopla over “gulag” was not just more of the same systematic discrediting of any body that might call dare criticize the US.
Do these body’s have agendas they’re willing to fight for? Yes. Is the world’s only superpower poised to be the target of lots of petty complaints? Probably. Are any of these groups out to destroy the US and worthy of all this acrimonious discrediting? Only the most paranoid would think so.
This seems to be some sort of a tag-team tar baby post…
Let me try and shortcut that line of discussion by saying that the intent of my comment was to note that if any administration is to be tarred by the Boeing deal, it’s not this one. I can, however, envision some reasons why names were redacted that have nothing at all to do with protecting the guilty.
Basically what happened is that Darleen Druyun solicited Boeing for an executive position while she was a government employee in a position to influence funding of Boeing contracts. To a large degree, Congress has to rely on the Pentagon to honestly report the up- and downsides to funding a given acquisition, and Druyun was able exert influence to sway the decision process in Boeing’s favor. So it’s quite possible that many signed off on this deal based on Druyun’s covert lobbying. Which invites additional oversight, I grant you.
I haven’t commented on this in detail because it’s a story that’s at least three years old, and because I’m employed by Boeing’s business competitor. I don’t work for the company in any executive or PR capacity, and I don’t represent the company’s points of view, and I certainly wouldn’t do so if asked. But for me to throw javelins in Boeing’s direction could carry some perceived conflict of interest, even though I’d been on record on the LMT yahoo message board (while employed elsewhere) as being highly critical of Druyun’s activities prior to her being caught and fired. If you want, though, I can research the facts and post them without much in the way of interpretation.
I just got to wonder in who’s eyes AI lost credibility? Tacitus’? Sebastian’s? Bird’s? As exemplars of a class, they had absolutely no respect for AI in the first place. Von’s? Much as he claims to be a centrist, I never really thought he had much on AI’s side of the fence in the first place.
So, I’m pretty sure that AI hasn’t lost any credibility with anyone who was behind their cause in the first place. Anyone with brain one can understand metaphor and the reason why you go after high profile people who can make a difference.
Losing Sebastian’s, Bird’s, Tacitus’ and – heck – even Von’s support for AI is like losing a vacuum in your backpack – It wasn’t actually there in the first place and it sure as hell wasn’t going to be there regardless of how you framed the question.
The problem is AI’s message, not the way it’s framed. However it was phrased, precisely the same reaction would have been elicited from these folks.
As Edward has pointed out, this is a recurring pattern that is entirely predictable. It’s not going to change because of a better choice of metaphor.
I wouldn’t want to place you in a conflict of interest, slarti, but i’d appreciate it if you’d be willing to post an objective overview. It sounds you are more than qualified to examine the matter.
Ok, working on it. Mostly it’s going to be a compendium of stuff freely available on Google, but I’m certainly willing to do the digging.
AI has fallen into the conceit that merely revealing a problem is actually dealing with it.
AI hasn’t “fallen into” anything. “Merely revealing” problems has been the modus operandi and primary insight of AI since its inception. “Merely revealing” abuses has caused thousands of releases of prisoners of conscience throughout the world. AI doesn’t have any troops; there are no AI commandos to drop into Darfur to separate the parties. When AI calls for “action,” what it means is faxes, telegrams, letters, the clear message that the world is watching.
I recognize that you have problems with how they use their spotlight, that’s great, whatever, I think your argument is balderdash (see Katherine and Josh Yelon above), but I seriously can’t stand to get into this argument again. But for the record, AI has never claimed to “deal with” anything, at least not in the manner you imply. Its entire purpose is to “merely reveal.”
Half-true. Conservatives would have beat up on AI no matter how they phrased their criticism of the US. I would have preferred that the conservatives look ridiculous and AI look noble, as opposed to the other way around.
Slarti –
For the truly insane, the DoDIG’s 5-volume report on the tanker deal is available. I would very much like to hear your perspective – I have a professional interest as well (we represent large clients in this field).
I’m confused about the distracting claim that AI ignored the actions of the criminal conspiracy called Al Quaeda. Of course they did not ignore it, but it seems to me that their primary goal has been to stop human rights abuse committed by or tolerated by governments. Has AI given Pakistan and Saudi Arabia a free pass? Did they approve the Taliban and Saddam? Do we really want to draw a moral equivalence between the United States and Al Quaeda?
I have to agree strongly with katherine that the problem is what our government has done and that we must focus on the atrocious behavior of our government in dealing with these problems. Furthermore, those who keep harping on the poor way AI criticized the United States come across as apologists for human rights violations.
It may be appropriate to comment that AI seemed a bit over the top in its comparison of America’s secret prisons with the Soviet Gulag, but on an NPR talk show the other day one victim of the Soviet Gulag called in to say that AI was correct to compare the two. I think it’s a silly argument because it distracts from the behavior of this administration, and, as some people have noted, it appears that this is the intent of those attacking AI.
Our government is committing crimes, both against US law and international law. There are proper procedures to hold people who are a risk to us; it is the duty of this administration to follow those procedures. It is an inexcusable lie on the part of the administration for it to say that it cannot keep us safe except by breaking the law. If they cannot follow the law, they should resign and allow people who are willing to follow the law run the country. If they won’t resign and they won’t follow the law, it is the duty of the House of Representatives to impeach those who have chosen to break the law.
I would have preferred that the conservatives look ridiculous and AI look noble, as opposed to the other way around.
That and $3.60 will get you a venti mocha (double whip, non fat).
It’s pretty clear what gets these guys’ goat. It ain’t nobility. It’s labeling them. As Edward pointed out, they did the exact same thing to the IRC and the IRC didn’t even use the word “gulag”. AI only looks silly to the people without a soul who didn’t have any respect for them in the first place.
You don’t go looking for respect in the people who are bullies and the enablers of the behavior you’re trying to change. That’s called victimization and it’s precisely the position they want you to be in.
It’s a trap, as any high school student not in the in crowd can clearly demonstrate.
Ack…why does it seem 90% of conservative behaviour is an overcompensating reaction to their own hurt feelings.
To the larger question of why there isn’t more outrage over America’s “gulags” the answer is simple- no major terrorist attacks since 9/11. Is detaining these people the reason for that? Probably not. But I wouldn’t expect a serious review of our anti-terror policies until we are hit again.
Sulla is probably right. Unfortunately, when another attack occurs, Bush will probably declare that it’s because of the carping by AI, etc., that he hasn’t been able to REALLY take off the gloves, and the present abuses will come to seem downright convivial.
How many more attacks until a majority of Americans openly endorse a preference for security over liberty? Assuming they don’t already?
I don’t know if it’s a lack of courage in this country, or pride, or what; we should be fierce in adhering to our system of justice, no matter what the terrorists do. Places like Gitmo are tantamount to statements that America isn’t good enough, that our courts, etc. aren’t up to the challenge.
I would happily scorn anyone who made such a claim; it’s just particularly ironic when the person making that claim is the President of the United States.
Sebastian, I recall commenting on Schulz’s offensive words here. They are every bit as outrageous and irresponsible as what Khan said.
Sebastian: you response still omits these words — the Bush administration deserves the most severe condemnation for its abuse policy and its failure to then deal with the leadership that caused it (and even worse, basically covering it up and preventing any meaningful investigation).
Its either that or you are a buyer of bad apple nonsense.
You seem to believe it makes more sense to demean the unpleasant tone of the AI whistleblowers than to focus on the crime that has been uncovered. Yeah — I wish they would use a nicer sounding whistle, but so what.
It is entirely off-base to argue that lesser degrees of torture matter less because greater torture exists elsewhere. This point of view seems to infect your thinking. What’s next? The Bush administration is not so bad because Nazis were so much worse?
And frankly, I do care a whole lot more about the Bush abuse policy than greater abuses by foreign nations, and I think that is a very proper attitude for US citizens (including Amnesty U.S.A.). Your moral compass is broken if you seriously think that outrage by US citizens about US abuse policy should be tempered because certain foreigners stink more.
And what induced you to write this?
But if you are an organization which alleges to focus on human rights abuses and you save your strongest forms of condemnation for abuses which are orders of magnitude less than other abuses of which you are aware, [emphasis added]
What makes you think AI is doing this? Since when is calling for an outside investigation that the Bush administration admittedly refuses to conduct the “strongest form of condemnation?” Your entire premise is based on a fiction.
This whole freaking debate reminds me of The Empire Strikes Back.
Leia: Why, you stuck up,…half-witted,…scruffy-looking…nerf-herder!
Han: Who’s scruffy-looking?
The current version:
AI: Why, you torturing, … US citizen detaining, … gulag running, … extraordinary renditioner!
Administration: Who’s gulag running?
Jesus effing Christ.
Fiction and a strange sense of priorities.
It’s always a bad sign when the way something is said becomes far, far, FAR more important than what was said. It’s a sign that the person offended isn’t interested in discussing content and facts. Rather they are interested in diversion, smokescreens and… well… bullshit.
They’re oh so reasonable. And oh so wrong.
Now that I mention it, perhaps I finally understand why it must criticize the US so loudly. AI is philosophically against actions which are necessary to stop very serious human rights abuses.
OK — if you believe this, while still being unable to condemn the Bush administration for its abuse policy, then I know that your moral compass is completely broken.
Utterly disgusting.
Sebastian, I recall commenting on Schulz’s offensive words here. They are every bit as outrageous and irresponsible as what Khan said.
And that, class, is a textbook example of what we call “poisoning the well.” ;pp
Anderson,
I think the best strategy for opponents of the administration’s policies towards detainees would be to highlight instances of innocent people accidentally swept up as opposed to living up to a set of ideals. I believe Americans are practical people and usually prefer what works (or what they perceive as working) as opposed to what is right or just. When they see the barbarity of our enemies our own becomes more tolerable. However, they don’t like to see innocent people mistreated.
AI is philosophically against actions which are necessary to stop very serious human rights abuses
aw great. you’ve gone and blown another of my irony fuses.
i should just quit reading the conservative posters here.
You guys seem to be getting these “not a gulag” posts down to a more concise form, but you can still do a lot better. How about once a day somebody posts “Not A Gulag” – just the title, no body, we’ll know what it means – and we can copy and paste the previous comment threads under it?
Ugh:
“AI: Why, you torturing, … US citizen detaining, … gulag running, … extraordinary renditioner!
Administration: Who’s gulag running?”
Right on!
The thing that makes my teeth grind so much when I read conservative denunciations of Amnesty International is the “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude. To wit:
Conservative bloggers: AI has lost credibility because they are concentrating on something bad (US human rights violations) when they should be concentrating on something much worse (other countries’ human rights violations).
Me shouting at my monitor: Conservative bloggers have lost credibility because they are concentrating on something bad (AI’s poor focus) when they should be concentrating on something much worse (US human rights violations).
I agree with Sulla’s comment on the way to discuss this (torture and abuse) with the general public. Liberals always talk in legal terms, which matter, but not to most people. Conservatives talk in moral terms but they often have their morality all screwed up. The way to discuss our government’s misbehavior is to talk up the cases of individuals–the cab driver who was tortured to death, for example,– not to get into legal discussions. The legal disccusions can take place in court or in Congress. People care when they can identify with the victim.
Welcome back, Sebastian, missed your posting.
As I’ve said, I view a lot of the anti-AI hysteria as indicative of a job well done, and am doubling my annual contribution to this worthy organization in anticipation of better work to come. AI may have used inflammitory language to publicize a growing human rights problem, but I can’t fault them for not trying to be more moderate. There is little moderate ground left to take, and anything critical of this administration will cause hysteria on the part of its supporters no matter what language is used, or what course is suggested. As has been pointed out, these people would not be supporters of AI anyway, so no loss there.
A few years ago, Canadian soldiers were responsible for the torture and murder of a Somali teenager caught stealing from their base. An inquiry resulted in the exposure of widespread racism within the regiment, and it was ordered disbanded and the regimental colours burned in shame.
I now realize that what was missing from this process of handling a human rights problem was the obvious lack of any enthusiastic criticism of terminology in the inquiry’s final report, and the complete absence from the report of the behaviour of soldiers from other nations.
lily,
“The way to discuss our government’s misbehavior is to talk up the cases of individuals–the cab driver who was tortured to death, for example,– not to get into legal discussions.”
The problem with talking about individual cases is that it becomes far too easy to blame a few bad apples, rather than the people who set free the whole bunch of maggots (to extend the analogy).
D-P-U,
Congratulations for rewarding their transparent efforts to “energize the base.” It’s not a “job well done” to address real concerns with juvenile hyperbole. It’s trolling.
Does no one understand that your argument is more persuasive to people when you say it reasonably and without hyperbole, and then your opponent completely flips out anyways? Amnesty was looking good when the Administration was on the defensive; then the “gulag” crack came out and now it’s just yet another political battle with no one being honest or fair. This makes most people tune it all out, which I don’t think helps put an end to the torture that nearly everyone here wants to stop.
I’ve supported Amnesty in the past, but I won’t consider it again. I’m not interested in yet another shrill and unprincipled political organization.
Dantheman,
I don’t believe this will ever flow up as high as you’d like it to. You might want to take what you can get.
This makes most people tune it all out, which I don’t think helps put an end to the torture that nearly everyone here wants to stop.
there is one party in all of this who can stop the torture. it’s not AI. it’s not bloggers. it’s not the media. it’s not the UN. it’s the GOP; and specifically, it’s George W Bush.
and what do we see, whenever the subject comes up ? Bush, his party, and their suckups use the opportunity as a way to discredit the messenger and his political opponents instead of acknowledging the problem and doing what is required to stop it.
nobody is responsible for this torture more than he is. nobody is to blame more than he is. AI isn’t torturing anyone. the media isn’t torturing anyone. anti-Bush bloggers aren’t torturing anyone. but the US military and intelligence agencies, under orders from George W Bush, are. and right now Bush is the only person who can stop it.
do you think he’d stop if people weren’t yelling at him to stop ?
Jonas,
“Does no one understand that your argument is more persuasive to people when you say it reasonably and without hyperbole, and then your opponent completely flips out anyways? Amnesty was looking good when the Administration was on the defensive; then the “gulag” crack came out and now it’s just yet another political battle with no one being honest or fair. This makes most people tune it all out, which I don’t think helps put an end to the torture that nearly everyone here wants to stop.”
I entirely disagree. As has been pointed out many times in the last 2 weeks, AI has in the past used temperate language in condemning these same acts, and no one noticed. The Administration was not on the defensive, because the public did not pay AI any attention. Now that AI used inflammatory language, it has made headlines and forced the issue onto the public’s radar.
An addendum to my earlier list of thing that would make me believe that the Republican Party isn’t committed to supporting torture and abuse:
– Anti-torture, pro-rule-of-law candidates running for office, preferably ones who genuinely are conservative in other ways as well (fiscal sensibility, federalism, and the like) but who in any event ground a public opposition to untrammeled executive power and its specific application in these matters in the Constitution and conservative tradition.
– Republican rank and file supporting those candidates with votes, donations, etc.
As it is, we have the token expressions of dismay followed by nothing in the way of constructive action, and I don’t think it means any more than when elementary school teachers ordered the bullies to apologize to the children they’d been picking on. It is obvious that in practical terms, absolutely nothing is worth giving up to oppose torture, executive autocracy, and all the rest of this mess except possibly the endorsement of other bloggers committed to the president without restraint or bound. Wherever the inalienable rights of humanity rest on the ladder of priorities, it’s obviously well below Bush’s continued ability to pursue his policies, judged by what his party is actually doing about it: jack all.
Sulla,
“I don’t believe this will ever flow up as high as you’d like it to. You might want to take what you can get.”
How high do I want it to fly? And how do you know?
(I contrast this to, for instance, what Atrios has done in the last two days. He took umbrage at the behavior of prominent people in the Democratic Party with regard to their criticism of Howard Dean, put the word out, and now Dean’s part of the party is $50,000 to the better. He’s done that before with other tipping points, too. To the best of my knowledge, nobody all is doing that among Republicans with regard to the tangle of issues that includes confinement without duration, interrogation without regard for the boundaries of torture, and so on. I would be happy to learn otherwise, of course – it would make me glad both that it’s being done and that I knew about it. Where are the Republicans willing to give up anything at all for this?)
JC: Amnesty was looking good when the Administration was on the defensive;
In what way? Was AI’s use of moderate language in last year’s report causing the closure of Gitmo and result in the current administration completely gutting and rewritint their detainee procedures? Was the IRC’s moderate tone putting the pressure on?
No it wasn’t, and your suggestion that it was is surprising, to say the least. Unless by “looking good” you mean “not making waves.”
Why does the phrase “kill the messenger” keep running through my head? Oy.
“(I excuse AI from making such demands about North Korea since its leader does not travel).”
Um, sure he does. Heck, he spent an entire month traveling by train across Russia in 2001. Then he took yet another train trip across Russia in 2002. He’s popped back and forth to Beijing even more frequently. Taking ~8,000-mile-long round trips doesn’t generally constitute “not traveling.” And even the political distance between Moscow and Pyongyang has been fairly great since before his father died in 1994.
Mind, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for either the Russians or Chinese to authorize the arrest of Kim Jong Il. But that’s a different matter.
“Amnesty was looking good when the Administration was on the defensive; then the “gulag” crack came out and now it’s just yet another political battle with no one being honest or fair.”
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this assertion, but I haven’t seen any evidence for it. Anecdotally, it seems to me that significantly more attention has been paid by the general public to the Guantanamo situation since AI’s report. You may not like it, but can you argue against it? And if indeed the outrage generated by the report (both pro and con) generates enough attention that pressure is placed on the administration to do something, and something is done, what then?
Dantheman,
Lacking a crystal ball I can’t know, but I do suspect the only people who will be brought to task for torture will be those who committed it and possibly their immediate supervisors. You seem to want, correct me if I’m wrong, those who you believe enabled torture to happen to be punished. That would take political pressure that doesn’t exist because at the end of the day most Americans just don’t care.
When did ObWi become a single-issue echochamber?
At what point did strikingly different opinions morph into an echo chamber?
And that, class, is a textbook example of what we call “poisoning the well.”
Edward, on the rare occasions when I agree with your opinion and say, I shall consider that a poisoning as well.
Jonas: I would have preferred that the conservatives look ridiculous and AI look noble
You have half your wish. Conservatives attacking AI on the basis of “OMG THEY SAID GULAG!” look ridiculous. (Indeed, anyone attacking AI on that basis looks ridiculous.)
The other half your wish is trickier.
To me, acting with nobility requires risk and sacrifice in a good cause. Obviously, the greater the degree of risk, the greater the sacrifice, the better the cause, the more noble the action.
Amnesty International certainly is a noble organization. It takes risks; it requires sacrifice; it acts in a good cause.
Criticizing the US over its human rights violations, however, is certainly a good cause – but for most people (certainly for most Americans) it is not especially a noble action. It may be on a local level – for example, when Sebastian Holsclaw publicly criticized the Bush administration for its support of torture, and did so on a conservative blog, knowing that his audience were mostly pro-torture and pro-Bush, that was a noble action, albeit on a local level.
But generically, worldwide, Amnesty International workers take far greater risks and make greater sacrifices – and thus, act with greater nobility – in many other countries. I’ve said elsewhere that I think one definite point in the US’s favor is that Amnesty International is able to document the US’s human rights abuses, and in a fair amount of detail. Katherine has been able to provide, in immense detail, evidence that shows that official support for torture in the Bush administration goes up to a pretty high level. There are many countries where providing that proof would in itself put Katherine at risk. That is not so in the US – at least, not for US citizens.
So, your wish is half granted, Jonas. Absolutely, the conservatives attacking Amnesty International look ridiculous. But Amnesty International’s standards of nobility – the level of risk and sacrifice that may be required – are sufficiently high that it can’t be said that criticizing the US is enough to make them look noble: if they did no more than criticize the US, and ignored the rest of the world (as conservatives have claimed, with absurd falsity) they would not be acting nobly, though certainly they would be acting in a good cause. Nobility lies in the risk and sacrifice frequently required of AI workers elsewhere in the world: merely to act in a good cause is not enough to confer it.
“It’s always a bad sign when the way something is said becomes far, far, FAR more important than what was said.”
This is entirely wrong, because it’s impossible to separate something said from how it’s said. What’s communicated is what’s communicated; the words used are the words used. (Not that this odd misconception that somehow the words used to say something are separable from their meaning is at all uncommon, to be sure; it’s particular common in defense of a bad choice of words [“oh, you’re just picking on what I said, not what I meant] — but if you mean something different from what you said, you need to instead say what you meant, rather than complain that people are pointing out you put something badly.) (Note: this is a general point I harp on; I remain uninterested in the apparently popular game of “yo mamma likes AI,” “does not!”)
Sulla,
“You seem to want, correct me if I’m wrong, those who you believe enabled torture to happen to be punished.”
My beliefs do not enter into it. I do want those who decided torture was something which was acceptable for our government to do and to countenance other governments to do punished.
“That would take political pressure that doesn’t exist because at the end of the day most Americans just don’t care.”
And deflecting all discussions of our decision to torture by claiming every messenger who brings this up are “Bush-haters” and “anti-Americans” who have gone off the deep end is exactly why the pressure does not exist.
Sulla: I think the best strategy for opponents of the administration’s policies towards detainees would be to highlight instances of innocent people accidentally swept up as opposed to living up to a set of ideals. I believe Americans are practical people and usually prefer what works (or what they perceive as working) as opposed to what is right or just. When they see the barbarity of our enemies our own becomes more tolerable. However, they don’t like to see innocent people mistreated.
(1) I agree, but as I think I mouthed off at CT a while back, we have yet to find an attractive, young, white woman (preferably blonde) who’s been wrongly held at Gitmo. She’d be all over CNN and Fox.
The abuses we’ve been committing strike me as very unlikely without the background of racial & cultural prejudice against Arabs & other non-pale folks. Maher Arar, for ex, should be a great poster child. But put his picture on the TV, and the average reaction will be “look at the guy, they *shoulda* put him in jail.” (Any word on whether Mr. Arar has, gasp, an accent?)
(2) Another problem is that we’re abusing people without knowing whether they’re innocent or not—the more I think about it, the more I think it’s a brilliantly evil move by the Admin. We can’t rail much about innocent people at Gitmo, because we don’t know who’s innocent—that’s the point. We’re holding them without regard for innocence or culpability.
(3) Finally, some of the people we’re mistreating may in fact be guilty of something or other—but we still shouldn’t mistreat them. Find ’em guilty in a fair trial, & imprison or shoot them: fine with me. But don’t beat them to death and call it “interrogation.”
This is the hardest part, because America is not a Christian nation, nor any sort of religious nation. We say we are. But what we do to our convicted criminals is excellent evidence to the contrary. And it’s very tough to sell Joe Blow on the notion that even a terrorist deserves due process and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. “Turn the other cheek” is not something one heard much of after 9/11, and while I don’t think it could be taken literally (see Machiavelli on impossibility of Christian politics), its spirit ought to guide America, if we’re this super-evangelical nation. Except, again, we’re not.
Dantheman,
Sidereal,
D-P-U,
What I described is a long-term strategy, that builds strong support. The contrast between Martin Luther King and his critics is what won over those who otherwise would have never considered what he had to say.
So Gitmo is in the news? Please! This argument about Amnesty is in the news, not Gitmo. I don’t know if you’ve noticed or not, but the numbers of posts on this subject here keeps on climbing, and everyone’s attempt to change the subject to be exclusively Gitmo is an abyssmal failure. So much for that idea!
Furthermore, given that my fellow liberals are so prone to rightly complain about the level of political discourse, take a look in the mirror. You all now think the aggressive, intellectually dishonest demagoguery is what wins the day. It’s not. Those who have done that kept their opponents – both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – in the White House.
“Furthermore, given that my fellow liberals are so prone to rightly complain about the level of political discourse, take a look in the mirror. You all now think the aggressive, intellectually dishonest demagoguery is what wins the day.”
Rather a strong generalization. “All”? Is that an example of intellectually honest non-demagoguery?
Edward, on the rare occasions when I agree with your opinion and say, I shall consider that a poisoning as well.
It’s not pointing out that you agree with it that makes it an example of “poisoning the well” Charles…it’s telling Sebastian what to conclude about it before he’s read it for himself. It’s an old debate term…not an insult toward you. I thought it would make you chuckle. my bad.
Gary,
You caught me – not all, of course. My language has been becoming so excessively conditional that I’m pushing back a little against it. I mean that in that “you all” idiomatic way.
Dantheman,
No the pressure doesn’t exist because (apart from the innocent people swept into the detention centers) most people have little sympathy for anybody who’s fellow travelers kidnap civilians and saw their heads off for the evening news.
Anderson,
Yes, a mistreated, attractive, middle class, white woman does generate sure media. It could be most people shrug off the detainees because of prejudice but I don’t see the world along racial or class lines. It is likely most Americans aren’t bothered by it because the people the detainees are associated with are some bad dudes.
True, the situation as is doesn’t allow for an effective, independent investigations. But I was thinking about the ones the military has already cleared and released.
Mistreatment for mistreatments sake is wrong. However, if the detainees are perceived to be dangerous men who will strike us upon their release, or acquitted in a trial. then I’m sure you can understand why many people would turn a blind eye. Not the most noble of attitudes of course but I find it realistic.
Sulla: most people have little sympathy for anybody who’s fellow travelers kidnap civilians and saw their heads off for the evening news.
And part of the problem is that no one has properly explained to the majority of Americans (certainly Bush & Co have either lied about it or ignored it, when speaking about Guantanamo Bay) that there has been no procedure to discover if prisoners sent to Guantanamo Bay, or indeed any other part of the American gulag archipelago, are in fact in any way connected with the vile people who kidnap civilians and saw their heads off for the evening news.
Further, American soldiers have kidnapped civilians, Sulla, and have tortured them to death. That they do not do so “for the evening news” does not make their crime less vile: it merely makes it less public.
“The contrast between Martin Luther King and his critics is what won over those who otherwise would have never considered what he had to say.”
Interesting contrast.
or this
Dr. King was no stranger to metaphor and strong rhetoric. What would you think, 42 years ago, about anyone who responded to the rhetoric of Dr. King’s eulogy with ‘OMG, he’s too confrontational! or ‘Hey, it’s a eulogy, it’s not appropriate to talk about politics!’. You’d think they were an ass, that’s what you’d think. Because you would know that the cause is just, and that’s what matters, and that’s what will decide whether you win people to your cause or not.
“Not the most noble of attitudes of course but I find it realistic.”
And part of the responsbility of being a good person is lifting peoples’ eyes from the realistic to the noble, and not spitting on those who are attempting it in your absence.
Sulla: “most people have little sympathy for anybody who’s fellow travelers kidnap civilians and saw their heads off for the evening news.”
Jesurgislac:
“And part of the problem is that no one has properly explained to the majority of Americans (certainly Bush & Co have either lied about it or ignored it, when speaking about Guantanamo Bay) that there has been no procedure to discover if prisoners sent to Guantanamo Bay, or indeed any other part of the American gulag archipelago, are in fact in any way connected with the vile people who kidnap civilians and saw their heads off for the evening news.
Further, American soldiers have kidnapped civilians, Sulla, and have tortured them to death. That they do not do so “for the evening news” does not make their crime less vile: it merely makes it less public.”
Tt’s probably true that most Americans don’t know what’s really going on, and to assign blame. The blame goes to the administration, the media, and those who voted for the administration.
Now, those who read blogs, not naming names here, but those who read blogs, have absolutely no excuse for not knowing what’s going on. That makes their arguments along the nature of ‘the prisoners are all evil terrorists’ rather dishonest.
No naming names, of course. Just saying.
Jes,
I was just offering my 2 cents on the best way for people who see the holding of the detainees as a grave injustice to gain political support. I think highlighting the mistreatment of innocent people is a superior tactic than defending Amnesty’s hyperbole, but whatever.
“it merely makes it less public“
Well yes, that was part of my point.
Sidereal,
To say King’s rhetoric is analogous to the slop coming out of Amnesty is pretty asinine and mildly offensive. You do not just get to say anything you’d like to make a strong point about a just cause. I can’t think of an instance where King ever did that.
Sidereal,
Unless there is an agreed on definition of what’s noble lifting people’s eyes is fancy language for the dirty business of politics and if you engage in politics you will be spit on.
You do not just get to say anything you’d like to make a strong point about a just cause.
Like there’s an Axis of Evil?
Honestly, what the ????
You don’t get to say anything slanderous. Otherwise, you can phrase things anyway you like.
Sounds about right to me, 2shoes. I’ll be ducking out due to the unreasonable sloppiness of my writing today.
Oh my gawd! I just realized that the commenter I’d most want on my side in a political fight is Sulla.
We’re so screwed.
Sulla, I agree that most Americans are unconcerned about the plight of the prisoners in Guantanamo. There are a number of causes for this, but prominent among them is that the Administration is staffed by moral midgets. Even worse, moral midgets with something to hide.
Of course it makes sense that the public discourse ought to be heavy on stories of people for whom there is no basis for detention. The thing is, the details are all classified. Only little bits are available, and the government, which controls all the information, is not doing much to highlight its mistakes.
Let me write this hypothetically. Suppose a client told me a tale involving another prisoner that would be newsworthy, but asked me not to do anything with it until I hear from the other guy, lest my guy face retaliation. Suppose that even if he changes his mind, the story is classified — as is anything that any prisoner says — and will not be declassified without certain paperwork from the second prisoner. Suppose further that the government controls the mail, and can prevent the second guy from sending me a letter. Ever. It will prevent me from sending a letter. Ever. Catch 22, right? So you can go ahead and have whatever opinions you want about what is happening in the prisons, and who is there, because information to the contrary is actively suppressed. This is, though, the opposite of the transparent democracy we inherited, and of which we are supposed to be the stewards.
And yet people spend their time complaining about AI.
Sebastian:
… perhaps I finally understand why it must criticize the US so loudly. AI is philosophically against actions which are necessary to stop very serious human rights abuses.
Perhaps I finally understand why Sebastian (or Charles, et al.) must criticize AI so loudly. They are philosophically against actions which are necessary to stop very serious human rights abuses by the Bush administration.
Jonas: I think highlighting the mistreatment of innocent people is a superior tactic than defending Amnesty’s hyperbole, but whatever.
And I think that highlighting the mistreatment of innocent people is a superior tactic to complaining about Amnesty’s choice of words to talk about it. But if you think it’s better to complain about Amnesty, well, what can I say?
Ooops – the last comment should have been directed at Sulla. Sorry.
Jonas: To say King’s rhetoric is analogous to the slop coming out of Amnesty is pretty asinine and mildly offensive.
To say that Amnesty International’s rhetoric about the US’s human rights abuses is “slop” is pretty asinine and mildly offensive.
CharleyCarp,
I believe we’ve flown back dozens if not hundreds from Guantanamo Bay, these are the people I had in mind. Maybe it wouldn’t work but I don’t see defending Amnesty’s little publicity stunt as a way to sway the semi-informed American. The informed ones are already committed one way or another and of course there is no use in trying to reach the uninformed.
SCMT- heh, you’re just beginning to find out how bad.
Jes,
My complaint about Amnesty is the only dog I have in the fight. I loose no sleep over the detainees, the horror, the horror.
Uh…I’m not sure if this is what you meant to say, so…is it, and if so, what do you mean by this?
JC:
“I’ll be ducking out”
Have a good one.
We can catch up later on whether King’s suggestion that the Birmingham church fire was ‘one of the most vicious and tragic crimes ever perpetrated against humanity’ was hyperbolic or not, and whether the difference between rhetoric and slop is based on preconceived notions or content.
“Sidereal,
Unless there is an agreed on definition of what’s noble”
How many people would disagree that keeping innocent people out of incarceration, due process, and humane treatment are noble? You’re wrong about why people don’t care. It’s not because most Americans are heartless. It’s because they don’t know or don’t want to know, so they don’t have to deal with it.
“lifting people’s eyes is fancy language for the dirty business of politics”
Please. Due process isn’t ‘politics’. It is one of the greatest travesties of the modern political climate that every criticism is cast as ‘politics’ so that it can be discounted. Reality isn’t about politics.
“and if you engage in politics you will be spit on.”
Oh, and nice jump to the passive tense.
Sulla: I lose no sleep over the detainees, the horror, the horror.
If you have no objection to the US kidnapping, imprisoning, torturing, and killing innocent people, I can see why you would find Amnesty International merely one more thing to complain about.
Sulla, I don’t think anyone is affirmatively going out of their way to defend AI. All the AI discussions I ever see are responses to conservative’s continuing attempts to talk about AI as a diversion. No one making some kind of strategic decision, it’s all reactive.
In that light, there’s a choice: sit quietly, and be taken as agreeing, or change the subject to something else. Threaded discussion, of course, biases strongly towards the former, inasmuch as people who are sitting quietly are, well, quiet. I haven’t spoken with anyone who has been released, but can imagine a number of reasons why they would not want to be part of any political campaign. From fear of recapture or discipline from their home governments, to unwillingness to have anything more to do with the West, to lying low until their civil suits go to trial. A great many have given media statements, but these are simply dismissed by people who are more invested in supporting a point of view than in acknowledging what is going on.
I accept your challenge though. In return, I challenge you to focus, when justifying the thing in any way (including that it is not a ‘gulag,’*) on those “guests” at Guantanamo who have been convicted of terrorism related crimes after a trial that meets minimal due process (notice, opportunity to be heard, confrontation, accepted rules of evidence).
* I would not and do not use the word.
Felixrayman,
I apologize if it seemed that I was being at all discourteous upthread. Such was not my feeling toward you.
Do you know the scene in the movie version of “Catch-22” when Art Garfunkel’s character has the dialogue with the old Italian man, and he’s frustrated with what he sees as the old man’s moral ambiguity? Finally, in exasperation, he asks, “Don’t you have any principles?” To which the old man scoffs, “Certainly not!” Show me someone who lacks moral certainty, and I’ll show you someone who isn’t committing any “crimes,” as you call them, nor doing any “good.” 🙂
I loose no sleep over the detainees, the horror, the horror.
Neither does the Bush Administration. That is why I object to their criminal behavior.
I’m very sorry that you don’t actually care what happens to people who have been kidnapped and held without a hearing or access to counsel by the government of the United States. I do care what happens. It is wrong. It is against the laws of the United States and international law. I don’t even want it to happen to you.
But Garfunkel’s character in that movie (and the book) is a naive chump. Moral certainty is for fanatics, and hoping for certainty is the same thing as wishing you were more credulous.
That doesn’t mean I don’t act in my community, or donate to causes; I just don’t need anything approaching “certainty” to make me do it. I don’t mean to attack you, otto – I have a hunch my disagreement with you is more semantic than anything else.
Before I forget:
Sebastian: Sorry for the month-long hiatus. It was necessary. In the meantime my volleyball team won 3rd out of 43 in Dallas over the Memorial Day weekend.
Welcome back, and congratulations! If any of your games are ever televised, you have to let us know 🙂
Now, to the topic at-hand. Most of this is, well, not exactly the kind of material I want to wade into, but there is one thing…
Sulla: I loose no sleep over the detainees, the horror, the horror.
I’ll bite: why not?
Sidereal,
The law and enforcement of the law are drenched in politics. If you don’t see it that way we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Jes,
I’m sure there are innocent detainees but bad things sometimes happen to good people. I wish it weren’t the case.
CharleyCarp,
The problem with your challenge is I doubt there is enough evidence to convict many of the detainees in anything but a show trial but I sure that for a few of them (and it could just be a few) it isn’t in our best interests to let them go.
Freelunch and Anarch,
The question as I see it is- upon release or acquittal are we sure none of the detainees will turn around and commit terrorist acts against us? Of course there is no way to answer this because it is so loaded. I doubt any politician would care to take it on either and so we’re stuck. I’m not happy with the situation but neither am I happy with the idea of putting these guys into the regular justice system because I doubt we have enough on most them them to get a conviction.
I’m not happy with the situation but neither am I happy with the idea of putting these guys into the regular justice system because I doubt we have enough on most them them to get a conviction.
So let me see if I’m getting this straight: We have a lot of people locked up in Gitmo, etc. because
If that’s an accurate summation of your views, I have a secondary question: what makes you think that the detainees in Gitmo are guilty (or going to be guilty) of conspiracy to commit terrorism? For those who are not, what do you think gives the United States government — and more specifically, the Executive Branch — the unabridged right to hold them indefinitely at Gitmo etc. without benefit of charge or trial?
I was going to respond to Sulla, but Anarch has said everything I would want to say, and somewhat better, so I’ll just say: Seconded.
The question as I see it is- upon release or acquittal are we sure none of the detainees will turn around and commit terrorist acts against us?
I cannot figure out how to distinguish this argument from an argument for totalitarianism or an argument against the rule of law.
Yes, it’s a good thing for the Bush campaign that it stayed away from aggressive, intellectually dishonest demagoguery.
Sulla, how can I be sure you’re not going to commit a terrorist act? Better ship you off to Gitmo and torture you a bit to be sure.
Anarch,
From what I understand the detainees were picked up during our Afghanistan campaign. Some were actively fighting for the Taliban while others were fingered by persons with axes to grind. The military is left to figure out who, if any, poses a danger to the U.S. I don’t think this gives the executive branch a right to indefinitely hold them but on the one hand it doesn’t concern me because I’d rather be safe than sorry on the other hand I brought up using the innocent people that have been there as a PR tactic because that does bother me. What’s the answer? I don’t have one.
freelunch,
Oh it’s definitely prototalitarianism. I’m a conservative after all.
KcinDC
If you ever catch me shooting at U.S troops in Afghanistan (where the were terrorist training camps for years) feel free to ship me where ever. This whole problem could have been avoided with a take no prisoners attitude.
This whole problem could have been avoided with a take no prisoners attitude.
Proscriptions, Sulla?
Sulla: From what I understand the detainees were picked up during our Afghanistan campaign.
No, that’s not so. Some of the prisoners were sold or given to the US military in Afghanistan (the “Afghanistan” campaign still continues). Many others were not. If you want to inform yourself more about the origins of the prisoners, check out this website. Guantanamo Bay holds people taken by the US from the Gambia, from Bosnia, from Spain – quite literally from across the world.
The question as I see it is- upon release or acquittal are we sure none of the detainees will turn around and commit terrorist acts against us?
As I pointed out somewhere, one Gitmo guard’s comment on the prisoners was “they may not have been terrorists before, but they are now.”
So, having done our best to convert these guys to al-Qaeda, we should now lock them up forever so that they won’t hurt us?
Miss Jones, get that Kafka character on the line–we need a screenplay, pronto!
Sulla: This whole problem could have been avoided with a take no prisoners attitude.
You’re right. Well, you’re half right. A large part of the problem could have been avoided if the US had had a “take no prisoners” attitude. The CagedPrisoners website seems to have gone down, again, but I was about to cite you as an example a man who is a journalist, who worked in Afghanistan, and who went home to Spain for a holiday: he was taken prisoner in Grenada and sent to Guantanamo Bay. If you go on holiday in Spain, Sulla, do you feel that this means you deserve to be taken to Guantanamo Bay?
Sulla,
I remember when conservatives hated totalitarianism.
Jes,
Very well.
Anderson,
Mock my position all you want. I consider it a type of community service for libs to tut-tut me in an effort to feel superior. I make no bones about there being conflicts within my position on the matter and never claimed it was the most tightly wound philosophical position. However, I do believe I’m in line with the majority of public opinion on this (for once).
ObWi community adieu- I make it a habit not to touch a computer on the weekends. We can continue the fun on Monday if you like.
Sulla: However, I do believe I’m in line with the majority of public opinion on this (for once).
And this is how freedom dies.
Sulla: I make it a habit not to touch a computer on the weekends.
Undoubtedly a good plan. 😉
D-P-U-G: And this is how freedom dies.
I’m afraid so. “We arrested him. He must be guilty. If he’s not, well, bad things happen to good people.”
it’s telling Sebastian what to conclude about it before he’s read it for himself. It’s an old debate term…not an insult toward you. I thought it would make you chuckle
I was just tweaking you back, that’s all. On my original comment, I thought it interesting the similarities between I and IV re Schulz.
st,
Indeed. And no attack perceived. Semantics. I meant to approach the whole thing with humor and skepticism (of my own position as well). Weren’t you laughing at that scene in Catch-22?
The question as I see it is- upon release or acquittal are we sure none of the detainees will turn around and commit terrorist acts against us?
If they wouldn’t have before, many of them almost certainly will now.
Some of the prisoners were sold or given to the US military in Afghanistan (the “Afghanistan” campaign still continues).
Why the “quotes” around “Afghanistan,” Jes?
Von: Why the “quotes” around “Afghanistan,” Jes?
Typo. Should have been “Afghanistan campaign” – Sulla was referring to it as if it were something long gone, whereas fighting is still going on in Afghanistan.
Should have been “Afghanistan campaign” – Sulla was referring to it as if it were something long gone, whereas fighting is still going on in Afghanistan.
Yes, OK. And I’d add that it’s not at all clear that we’re winning. (And, as in Iraq, I’m in favor of sending more men/women and/or money, as needed, to improve the odds.)
And this is how freedom dies.
Two thoughts:
1. At this point, I’m a lot more worried about keeping the Gitmo Archipelago from growing, and about keeping the truly bat-sh*t legal analysis the Administration has offered up from getting applied in other contexts, than I am about the Gitmo Archipelago itself. It’s reprehensible, but I can kind of see where Sulla is coming from if I assume that current policy is as bad as it gets. We do, after all, continue to function with a criminal justice and prison system that does bad things to good people (or at least not especially bad people) all the time.
2. As I think about the analogy between U.S. prisons and the Gitmo Archipelago, it occurs to me that I should be a whole lot more outraged about U.S. prisons than I actually am.
We do, after all, continue to function with a criminal justice and prison system that does bad things to good people (or at least not especially bad people) all the time.
Every system where groups of people are under the strict authority of other groups provides the potential for abuse. That’s where due process and accountability provide a checks and balance system to help prevent those abuses.
The scary thing about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib is that the public checks and balances are not only non-existant, the facilities have been set up specifically to avoid those checks and balances.
The fact that we’re seeing open admission by the government that due process has being abandoned because it’s inconvenient to them doing whatever they want to these people is shocking. More shocking is that there isn’t public outrage at this.
I dunno, maybe I’m missing something, but it’s discouraging to witness the rage at Amnesty’s choice of words at describing what is possibly the first stages of the disintegration of the American concept of freedom and justice in exchange for an illusion of security and safety. Amnesty is justified in their terminology here, some bad stuff is happening, and the strong language reflects on that.
“This is entirely wrong, because it’s impossible to separate something said from how it’s said.”
Boy, if that were true we’d have no common understanding across languages, styles of speech and presentation. There’s such a thing as obsessive compulsive attention to protocol – Miss Manners on steroids.
Using offense at how something was conveyed as a reason to discredit the source is a tactic as old as humanity. And we have plenty of myths and stories that warn us against such obsession.
d-p-u But at least good manners and civil society will be upheld.
At all costs, politeness must prevail.
I dunno, maybe I’m missing something, but it’s discouraging to witness the rage at Amnesty’s choice of words at describing what is possibly the first stages of the disintegration of the American concept of freedom and justice in exchange for an illusion of security and safety. Amnesty is justified in their terminology here, some bad stuff is happening, and the strong language reflects on that.
I phrased my last post badly, or maybe haven’t thought it through fully. I’m agnostic about whether Amnesty’s “gulag” reference was appropriate–I think the answer depends on whether it succeeds in getting people to look seriously at the substance of their report, and there’s some indication that it’s working–but I fully agree that our government’s treatment of prisoners is a very serious problem and one that needs to be fixed. My point was only that there are other very serious problems that need to be fixed, such as the way we treat our domestic prisoners, that have not, thus far, proven to be the death knell of freedom in this country (although when I look at the War on Drugs I’m not entirely sure of that). Put crassly, if you expect the Gitmo Archipelago to be reserved for brown-skinned foreigners who’ve gotten crosswise of U.S. troops, allied security types, and the like, it’s not unreasonable to see it as no more threatening to the freedom of Americans than other things that most of us don’t spend a lot of time worrying about.
I’m trying to fix a garbled post with another garbled post.
Bottom line: I guess all I’m really trying to say is that if you’re willing to assume, as I think Sulla is, that the Gitmo Archipelago is a one-off response to 9/11, I can understand his response, and I can understand why he would not see it as a singular outrage. I disagree with him, but I don’t think he’s crazy or proto-fascist or whatever.
it occurs to me that I should be a whole lot more outraged about U.S. prisons than I actually am.
Yes.
The American justice system leave a lot to be desired. Many groups in America have been suffering from what appears to be an unbridled police state for decades. Being a poor, young, African-American male appears to be a crime in itself and despite clear directions from the Supreme Court, our society refuses to pay enough to provide a proper defense to each of these poor accused. If you are poor, you may have the right to counsel, but you have to share it with every other accused.
Not to mention what happens in the prisons themselves. It’s pretty scary to think about the implications of the fact that Charles Graner, and IIRC some of the others implicated in abuse of detainees, are prison guards in civilian life.
“(And, as in Iraq, I’m in favor of sending more men/women and/or money, as needed, to improve the odds.)”
This begs the question that either more U.S. personnel or money is, in fact, what’s needed. It’s a fairly questionable, if not possibly dangerous, assumption.
I believe many of these folks cannot be successfully prosecuted because the evidence has been obtained through torture or other dubious methods. Even legal but harsh interrogations would likely run a foul of evidence rules, etc.
Surely some of the urgency to keep their fate indefinate lies in the need to dodge an accounting. This has worked splendidly so far. I suppose its worth noting that many have been released, I assume these were the safest (politically as well as militarily) to free. No doubt the rest can be stonewalled through another election or two …
(some of those are likely safest at Gitmo, given the gentle mercies of their home countries – no excuse for skipping a proper accounting, though).
“…it occurs to me that I should be a whole lot more outraged about U.S. prisons than I actually am.”
It never hurts. Most people don’t give a damn, since, after all, only bad people wind up in prison. (Epiphanies seem common once one spends a single night in jail, or a relative or loved one does.) (No, I’ve never even been arrested, myself.)
Okay. Rewrite your post explaining this, but this time don’t use words. Demonstrate how you can, indeed, separate out the meaning, and communicate it, in writing, without those pesky misleading words.
Um, that seems to be completely missing the point, Gary. Certainly, one can convey meaning without words. But that’s not what I’m saying. I’m simply saying that arguing about whether something is said rudely and using that as a means to discredit the message that was said rudely is a sign that form is being placed over substance. Protocol over message.
There are those that care about what was said and there are those that care about how it was said. And this can lead to amazing aberrations. For example, posts about a venerable institution which has done more for the cause of freedom in one day than probably all of us involved in these comments and posts have done in the integrated sum of our lives. Yet this can all be dashed because this organization has chosen to frame their message in a manner which the target takes as offensive.
This is clearly worrying far more about the form than the substance. And the reason why is quite clear.
“Certainly, one can convey meaning without words.”
Not in writing, which is all I’m, of course, talking about: no.
“I’m simply saying that arguing about whether something is said rudely and using that as a means to discredit the message that was said rudely is a sign that form is being placed over substance.”
Arguably so, but you seem to be discussing some other topic than what I wrote, or arguing with something someone else said. I take it you want to talk about Amnesty International, et al. That’s fine. It’s in the thread title, after all. Many here clearly want to (although the last time I noticed anyone here saying anything new on the topic during the month of May, myself, thus my own lack of seeing any useful point). Possibly, however, I was too subtle when I wrote “(Note: this is a general point I harp on; I remain uninterested in the apparently popular game of ‘yo mamma likes AI,’ ‘does not!’)” above. I do apologize for my apparent lack of clarity.
I’ll be the first to admit that you can dance around a point far better than I’m able to keep up with you. Sorry for being boorish.
I don’t think you were being boorish, Hal.
I do have an extremely strong tendency, going back to at least early childhood, to take up points other than the “main” point someone is making, because that’s what I happened to be interested in. I like to think that I try to be very careful — sometimes failing abysmally, please stress the word “try” — in making clear that I am, in fact, addressing only a sub-point or a general point or an entirely different point, than that other people are discussing, and thus I often end up becoming exasperated with other people responding as if, no matter, I was still on that other point others were talking about, just as they become exasperated with me for, they perceive, making an argument that doesn’t address what they’re talking about, or for various variations on this theme. Much as I’d prefer to apportion blame for this onto other people’s lack of careful reading, it’s clear that I bear considerable responsibility myself for this dynamic; where fault lies either overall or in specific cases is not for me to judge or say.
ASCII is an abysmal medium and you have a quite complicated style. I find it all too easy for me to get lost in all the elegant twists and turns and talk past the specific point in question. My apologies.
Sulla, I’ll leave this in case you pick it back up on Monday. I don’t know whether or not ‘most’ prisoners in Guantanamo were picked up in Afghanistan, but a great many were not. This is a fact, and all the talk on the internet about ‘battlefields’ is not related to the actual position of the US government: they think they can hold the little old lady from Switzerland. It is also a fact that a great many prisoners have never fired a shot in anger at anyone associated with the United States, and are being not held on suspicion of having done so. So yes, there’s a huge problem with sending them to trials, as you acknowledge.
If we’re going to just start rounding people up because they might be dangerous, how about all those members of militias? Members of the KKK? Anyone with a complexion darker than a grocery bag? People who apparently think that the ends of their own personal safety justify throwing away the means for acheiving a just society — I mean, that’s who’s really dangerous. Gulags aren’t imposed by beings from outer space. They come from people who are willing to look the other way for some kind of short term benefit.
If we’re going to just start rounding people up because they might be dangerous, how about all those members of militias? (Erik Rudolph, and rightly so) Members of the KKK? (Sen Byrd) Anyone with a complexion darker than a grocery bag?
They’re about to throw Neil Prakash in prison? News to me.
Another thing that should be considered is that the US was known as “The Great Satan” even as far back as the Jimmy Carter era.
“Another thing that should be considered is that the US was known as ‘The Great Satan’ even as far back as the Jimmy Carter era.”
By some Iranians. Of course, they had no reason whatever to hold a grudge against the United States. It was all just arbitrary and out of the blue. Who knows why those excitable Iranians might feel that way? It’s a mystery.
CharleyCarp,
Thanks for all your comments. Best wishes.
Gary, if I might rephrase what I think was Hal’s original point, while hoping to avoid further gratuitous pedantry:
If a man were sitting in a burning house, humming along with his record collection as his living room caught fire, and a housemate, in the midst of fleeing the house, ran up to him to yell, “Hey, idiot! The house is on fire!”, it’s possible that the man in the burning house might think to himself, “Me, an idiot? How utterly rude! I demand an apology,” and return to perusing his LPs. But this person would be phenomenally stupid, because the manner in which the message was delivered (rudeness and insult) is quite easily separated from the content of the message (the house is on fire), and any reasonable person willing to receive the message would want to act on it as soon as possible, regardless of the manner in which that content was delivered (particularly as the content reveals information which would allow the hearer of the message to preserve his own life).
To say that you cannot ever divorce content from style or language from the form of its delivery is both wrong and silly. The manner of a message’s delivery may make it more or less likely that a message’s content will be separated from that manner, but the two are distinct and can readily be separated by anyone who is willing to do so. What an inflammatory style does is make it less likely that there are listeners willing to make that separation.
“And this is how freedom dies”
d.p.u.
I can’t, and haven’t, argued that the Gitmo situation doesn’t betray some of our national character. However, our enemies have used our freedoms against with devastating effect so I feel comfortable with extreme solutions for extreme situations. This isn’t born out of some irrational fear regarding terrorist attacks but out of the zeal I have to purse and kill this enemy. I don’t hold slippery slope arguments in high esteem and I trust that when this enemy is no longer a credible threat we will be able regain what we have lost.
“that the Gitmo Archipelago is a one-off response to 9/11, I can understand his response”
DaveL,
That is part of it but I’d also add that I trust the Bush administration and not just because they’re Republicans, I’d trust any President in this situation was working to keep Americans safe. I’m naturally suspicious of government and desire openness for accountability reasons but I don’t always believe we can have it in national security matters. As for brown skinned foreigners crack I think I’m being projected upon- this is about terrorist ideology and not race. I reserve cells at Gitmo for anyone with blond hair and blue eyes interested in helping Al-Qaeda.
CharleyCarp
As odious as the KKK is I don’t think they warrant an extreme type of treatment. Terrorism Americans visit upon one another, be it the Klan or Kaczynski, is aptly handled by our criminal Justice system. Al Qaeda is an amorphous international organization hiding in a region in the world where we have few real allies. We don’t have the time (if we even knew the means) to build the proper relationships with the proper groups who could become our allies and who we could trust to take care of this. Therefore I believe extreme solutions are warranted. And again, it isn’t about race.
Sulla, you do seem to be harboring the delusion that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are all al-Qaeda or interested in helping al-Qaeda. If you can show evidence that all 540 prisoners are al-Qaeda, or have proven themselves “interested in helping” before they were arrested, please do. Cite here.
The “extreme solution” of Guantanamo Bay is that the US should be allowed to hold prisoner anyone they feel like, for as long as they like, without being required to show that they are guilty of anything. What exactly is this a “solution” to, in your view?
Sulla:
Al Qaeda is an amorphous international organization hiding in a region in the world where we have few real allies.
I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not sure that it’s fair to say this about Afghanistan (post-2002), Gambia, or Bosnia. And how does this account for prisoners apprehended by Pakistani authorities, and turned over to the US?
We don’t have the time (if we even knew the means) to build the proper relationships with the proper groups who could become our allies and who we could trust to take care of this.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. I agree that fighting AQ is difficult, and requires that we act aggressively. Certainly it would be a good thing to enlist allies in the effort, and I think that there’s been a pretty fair record on this. Pakistani (and Syrian, for God’s sake) intelligence may not be perfect allies, but they’re as good as we could get, and they served adequately. I would say that it is this cooperation, much more than detentions of folks in Gitmo, that accounts for the failure of AQ to reach the US these last several years.
I do not see how our lack of allies requires indefinite detention without trial. Or abusive interrogation. I understand the short-term case for trying to get information from a KSM about ongoing operations, but this is of a very different character that long term detention and repeated interrogation of ordinary schmoes on a mosaic theory basis.
Therefore I believe extreme solutions are warranted.
Well, I think that some extreme solutions are warranted — a military strike at AQ for instance — but others are not, like beating a taxi driver to death. What you have not explained is why, once AQ members have been removed from immediate effectiveness (that is, once apprehended, and removed from the “battlefield”) they cannot be tried like ordinary criminals. Is it because they have committed no crimes? Or because it’s difficult to prove they have committed any crime? The problem with this approach is that you end up with taxi drivers. Or aid workers.
The trouble with simply saying that extreme solutions are required is that it’s a blank check.
And again, it isn’t about race.
This is an interesting statement. I’m not sure whether you are simply reacting to my mention of the KKK — what I meant was that if you are going to arrest and hold people for membership in a group, or sympathy with it, you’re going to have plenty of people to arrest. My point wasn’t about the ideology of the KKK at all, but about its dangerousness.
That said, there are a couple of things to think about wrt race. First, although I suppose most prisoners in Guantanamo are of the same race — whatever a race* actually is — one cannot help noting the fact that citizens of European countries seem to get released at much higher rates that citizens of the Arabian peninsula. I think one would be hard put, on the public record, to conclude that this is explained by the underlying facts of the prisoner’s alleged conduct. I think this is both about our relationships with European governments, and about some assumptions we make. Racism is maybe a little strong a charge to make, but it may be fair to say that racism’s step-brother is in play here. There is clearly, though, a rascist component to the intake side of the question. Like ‘driving while black,’ many prisoners’ primary crime seems to consist of being an Arab in Pakistan or Afghanistan. It may be that many Arabs in Afghanistan in 2001-02 were “members”** of AQ, but you can be absolutely sure that not all of them were. And if “membership” in AQ isn’t going to be the test for who gets locked up, but it’s going to be based on some kind of conduct aimed towards hostile action, then you’re looking at fewer people still.
* Are there races? If so, how many? This is a lot more difficult than it seems. I prefer to think in terms of ethnicities, because in all contexts other than black/white, it seems to me to be how people actually live.
** I don’t know what membership in AQ means, really. It’s not like they issue ID cards and collect union dues. It’s not like a country club (although I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some kind of sponsorship thing). Let’s say, though, that it’s like the Republican party: a guy who registers to vote as a Republican in Maryland is no less a member of the party than the junior senator from Montana — membership being essentially binary. (Actually, one would say that the Marylander is no more a member, because in Montana one does not register to vote by party). And we’re all familiar with people who say that they are conservatives, not really Republicans, but that their conservatism inclines them to vote Republican in every election. If you’ve decided that Republicanism is a dangerous treason, and you’re arresting people based on “membership” in it, is there really no difference between Slartibartfast, Von, Bird, (all three of whom I would say are in taxonomically distinct catagories) and Dick Cheney?
On reflection, “harboring the delusion” was rude, and I take it back. Sorry, Sulla.
However, the presumption that all prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are terrorists has been asserted over and over again for well over three years, but it’s never been proved true yet, and I doubt it’s true now, whatever Dick Cheney may say.
Jes,
I believe I have conceded that the detainees who were already released were innocent and that others still being held likely are. The thorny issue for me is that some others are likely guilty but we don’t have enough evidence to deal with them in traditional ways. You advocate that lacking the evidence these detainees should be released, I’m not so gung-ho about that and trust the military will sort it out. It is essentially a guilty before proven innocent argument that I feel is warranted by our lack of vigilance for the 25 years prior to 9/11. You feel differently and have 200+ years of legal precedence to back you up. Fine, but I’m not arguing this in court. I’m just saying I’m comfortable with the situation as it is. Take it for what it’s worth.
Charley Carp,
No matter what the President or the media says I don’t trust the governments of Pakistan, Syria or Saudi Arabia to fully help us out in the war on terror. I believe they do what they feel they have to out of fear rather than genuine cooperation. So I think it is prudent for us to reserve extraordinary means in dealing with AQ for the near future. It is a blank check and abuses will occur. In a just world I would be against such things but given the world that we have and the situation we are in I’ll live with it for now. And it would be some relative of racism if most of the detainees were solely picked up because they’re gulf state Arabs in Afghanistan but I have yet to see evidence that is why they are in Gitmo. If that turns out to be the case then yes, outrage is warranted.
Sulla: The thorny issue for me is that some others are likely guilty but we don’t have enough evidence to deal with them in traditional ways. … Take it for what it’s worth.
I do. You are comfortable with the US running a gulag. Okay.
Just as comfortable as you are in setting terrorists free.
“You are comfortable with the US running a gulag. Okay.”
“Just as comfortable as you are in setting terrorists free.”
Indeed, making the most simplistic possible accusation as to someone else’s beliefs is clearly the best way to persuade people and mutually learn from each other. How useful it is to speak in hostile bumper stickers!
Everyone should be sure to learn from these exemplars of competent and useful debate.
The key, of course, is to be a content-free as possible while still maintaining maximum self-righteousness and self-congratulation. Study and learn!
Eventually, with work, practitioners can graduate from grade school down to kindergarten-level debate. And they’ll feel even better about their moral superiority!
Sulla: Just as comfortable as you are in setting terrorists free.
The difference is: I have never said the US should set terrorists free.
You have explicitly said that you’re comfortable with the US arresting/kidnapping people who may well be guilty of nothing at all, and holding them illegally indefinitely.
You may argue that my strong feeling that the rule of law should not be set aside no matter how scared some Americans are is identical with “setting terrorists free”, but you’ll have to prove that. I’d like to see you try.
Actually, I wouldn’t, really. You’re comfortable with the US running a gulag. I see no point in trying to change your mind: I prefer to deal with those who are outraged that the US runs a gulag, whether or not they accept that it does. Charles Bird may wish so much to believe that Guantanamo Bay is not a gulag that he declines to look at the evidence that it is, but at least he’s not comfortable with the US running one.
Gary,
You’re right of course but I give what I get.
Jes,
If you don’t believe we will release terrorists if we released every detainee we lack enough evidence to prosecute in a traditional court of law then you are naive. Like I said the situation as it is now is guilty before proven innocent. They’re there, locked up in Gitmo and the powers that be think it is best so I don’t see the situation as me having to prove to you all 540 are guilty. I see it as you having the equally impossible task of proving to the government all 540 are innocent. Good luck.
Like I said the situation as it is now is guilty before proven innocent.
Guilty of what?
Also: what, beyond might, gives you the right to decide to abrogate the liberties of those imprisoned? More generally, what do you think, beyond might, gives the US government the right to decide to unilaterally and without trial decide to abrogate the liberties of those imprisoned? And what restitution do you feel will be due to those who were wrongfully detained?
Sulla: If you don’t believe we will release terrorists if we released every detainee we lack enough evidence to prosecute in a traditional court of law then you are naive.
And you are comfortable with keeping innocent people locked up indefinitely because “the powers that be” think they might be guilty. Which is to say: you’re comfortable with the US running a gulag.
I really don’t see that we have anything further to discuss.
Sulla, even if a presumption of guilt was justified — and I don’t think it is — surely the prisoner ought to be afforded some kind of fair proceding in which to prove innocence. What we have here is massive resistance even to that.
As for whether we’d release “terrorists,” I suppose that depends on exactly what a terrorist is. Someone who has engaged in the practice? Someone who might? Someone we now can reasonably fear will take revenge? The little old lady from Switzerland?
This is just one of many problems with Rumsfeld’s statement today that these people will be held until the “war” is over. It’s not like there is an actual enemy side with which peace can be concluded. No, this war goes until we stop using the word — but if anyone who is released, regardless of their conduct before being apprehended, engages in terrorism, then the war is back on. So it’s another Catch 22: the war isn’t over until all the potential terrorists (a category that includes taxi drivers) — including those incarcerated — are permanently disabled from all ability to commit acts of terror, and none of those incarcerated gets released until the war is over.
So it’s another Catch 22: the war isn’t over until all the potential terrorists (a category that includes taxi drivers) — including those incarcerated — are permanently disabled from all ability to commit acts of terror, and none of those incarcerated gets released until the war is over.
Simple solution:
“Guilty of what?”
Conspiracy to commit terrorism
“More generally, what do you think, beyond might, gives the US government the right to decide to unilaterally and without trial decide to abrogate the liberties of those imprisoned?”
Nothing
“And what restitution do you feel will be due to those who were wrongfully detained?”
Nothing
“Which is to say: you’re comfortable with the US running a gulag.”
No more comfortable than you are in letting the guilty go. Which is to say: you’re comfortable with setting terrorists free.
“I really don’t see that we have anything further to discuss.”
Fine
“What we have here is massive resistance even to that.”
I believe the stakes are too high for reasonable doubt, sorry.
FYI- one more post on another thread and I’m out til Thur, golfing tomorrow.
“More generally, what do you think, beyond might, gives the US government the right to decide to unilaterally and without trial decide to abrogate the liberties of those imprisoned?”
Nothing
So the legitimacy of our actions reduces, in your mind, to “might makes right”? That’s… problematic, to say the least.
“And what restitution do you feel will be due to those who were wrongfully detained?”
Nothing
Why? Surely if someone were, by your own admission, illegally detained without cause, they should be entitled to some form of compensation?
Which is to say: you’re comfortable with setting terrorists free.
Assumes facts not in evidence. The correct formulation would be that Jes is comfortable with setting potential or alleged terrorists free — again, by your own admission. That’s a huge distinction.
And enjoy your golf.
Anarch: Assumes facts not in evidence. The correct formulation would be that Jes is comfortable with setting potential or alleged terrorists free — again, by your own admission. That’s a huge distinction.
And at that, it makes me twitchy, I confess; especially as the US has acted in such a way as to practically ensure that anyone who was sent to Guantanamo Bay is now an enemy of the US, whether or not they ever act on their emnity.
But, not enough. It hardly makes the US any safer to lock up a few hundred people on the basis that some of them may be guilty of wanting to commit crimes against the US. It’s the kind of thinking that leads to bombing whole neighborhoods because one alleged terrorist lives there, so if you kill the alleged terrorist (along with a dozen or so innocent civilians) you’re at least minus one terrorist, yes?
Except that, as Israel has confirmed over and over again, destroying a dozen innocent people to get one possible terrorist does not end up with a nice arithmetical minus-one terrorst.
Rather, it ends up with a few dozen people who now feel a settled and powerless hatred towards the enemy who so casually destroyed innocent people to get one person whom they couldn’t even prove was guilty. That feeling of hatred combined with powerlessness is precisely the kind of feeling which ultimately produces terrorism: mere hatred is not enough. It must be a permanent feeling of hatred combined with a sense of powerlessness to change the situation through any normal means. My country has some experience of this.
Once take the step of creating a gulag: unless you are prepared to expand the gulag network indefinitely, filling the gulags with more and more people so that no one ever dares so much as lift their head (and for that you need a more efficient policing system than the one the US presently has in the countries from which it mainly harvests its prisoners) and eventually the whole affair will blow up in your face.
I am fairly convinced that Sulla is comfortable with this merely because he hasn’t thought all the consequences through. (Or possibly because he is uninformed about the various methods used to fill up the American gulags, and thinks that probably most of the prisoners in the gulags must be guilty of something, since after all, they have been arrested.)
At least, I’m going to hope that’s why Sulla is comfortable with the American gulags. It would distress me to think that he knows they were filled more-or-less at random, with no known process of determining why anyone should go there – and doesn’t care.