Amnesty International hits bottom, digs.

[Mycroft]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701218.html

No American 'Gulag'

Several days ago I received a telephone call from an old friend who is a longtime Amnesty International staffer. He asked me whether I, as a former Soviet "prisoner of conscience" adopted by Amnesty, would support the statement by Amnesty's executive director, Irene Khan, that the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba is the "gulag of our time."

"Don't you think that there's an enormous difference?" I asked him.

"Sure," he said, "but after all, it attracts attention to the problem of Guantanamo detainees."

Oh good lord, have these people no sense of perspective?

The article is worth reading in its entirety, but the last paragraph reflects my personal views most closely:

Words are important. When Amnesty spokesmen use the word "gulag" to describe U.S. human rights violations, they allow the Bush administration to dismiss justified criticism and undermine Amnesty's credibility. Amnesty International is too valuable to let it be hijacked by politically biased leaders.

 

[RandFan]

It was only natural that Amnesty flourished in the United States and in Western Europe, where human rights are taken seriously and their defense became an official part of U.S. foreign policy, largely due to the efforts of President Jimmy Carter. There were heroic attempts to create Amnesty groups in countries with dictatorial regimes, including the Soviet Union, but most of those attempts were crushed by arrests and forced emigration.

"Only natural that Amnesty flourished in the United States..." It bears repaeating.

 

[RandFan]

Words are important. When Amnesty spokesmen use the word "gulag" to describe U.S. human rights violations, they allow the Bush administration to dismiss justified criticism and undermine Amnesty's credibility. Amnesty International is too valuable to let it be hijacked by politically biased leaders.

I have for 20 years supported Amnesty when I heard a representative speak at the University of Utah. At times I have done so begrudgingly due to what I thought was more political motivation =. Great article Mycroft. Thanks.

 

[Mycroft]

I have for 20 years supported Amnesty when I heard a representative speak at the University of Utah. At times I have done so begrudgingly due to what I thought was more political motivation =. Great article Mycroft. Thanks.

And Amnesty International still serves an important purpose. I think the real issue here is how best to serve that purpose.

Back in the days of the Cold War, AI was a place where left and right politics came together, and I think they lose a lot by leaving that to serve leftist politics.

I've been thinking a lot about the argument that the United States should be held to a higher standard, deserving more criticism for lesser human rights violations than other nations. I think the conclusion I'm comming to is that argument is fundamentaly flawed.

Yes, the United States should be held to a higher standard, but it should be held to a higher standard by US citizens. We, as citizens, should be more concerned by US violations of human rights because they are in our house and under our direct control, where violations of human rights in Iran or North Korea are not under our direct control.

Amnesty International, however, is an international organization. Their duty is to judge everyone by the same standard. Why? Because in the end, all they have is their credibility to sustain them. Once that's smeared by political taint, they lose credibility and influence. It's Amnesty International that needs to be held to a higher standard.

 

[CBL4]

I've been thinking a lot about the argument that the United States should be held to a higher standard, deserving more criticism for lesser human rights violations than other nations. I think the conclusion I'm comming to is that argument is fundamentaly flawed.

I think we should hold ourselve to higher standard and I do not mind outside groups helping in it. When we backslide from moral positions, we need to be reminded by AI, Human Rights Watch, etc.

However, the outside groups need to be accuarate in their criticism. I hate Gitmo and I felt sick to my stocmach when I saw the picture from Abu Graib. I think it is reasonably likely Bush is a minor war criminal from these type of actions.

However, the Gulag statement is beyond absurd. Not only is it not helpful, it allows Bush et al to ignore the valid points AI makes. It also allows legitimate targets to disregard AI's comments aimed at them because the tyrants are "the same as the US."

CBL

 

[Manny]

And Amnesty International still serves an important purpose.

With great sadness, I now disagree. AI is a group I've been a member of and contributed to. But they've gone off the deep left end and no longer represent anything but hatred of America. Their overblown rhetoric serves the propaganda interests of terrorists and gives a pass to real national violators of institutional rights. After all, why should China care if they round up some dissidents or Sudan be worried about killing a couple of hundred thousand people -- the United States has a Gulag.

I hope they repent someday. Until then they are the enemy and can go to hell.

 

[Orwell]

Mycroft, I think you're going overboard with this "gulag" thing.
Here's the full speech. I suggest you read it.

Amnesty International Report 2005
Speech by Irene Khan
at Foreign Press Association

 

[blndrhed]

I really don't think you guys have any idea of the scope of the international detainment facilities where Arabs have mysteriously disappeared to. AI is not only referring to Gitmo, they are referring to the practices of "extraordinary rendition" of prisoners to foriegn countries for "interogations", plus a network of "detention facilities" (concentration camps). That exist throughout Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/2004_alerts/0617.htm

 

[Rob Lister]

I really don't think you guys have any idea of the scope of the international detainment facilities where Arabs have mysteriously disappeared to. AI is not only referring to Gitmo, they are referring to the practices of "extraordinary rendition" of prisoners to foriegn countries for "interogations", plus a network of "detention facilities" (concentration camps). That exist throughout Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/media/2004_alerts/0617.htm

What did you mean by "extraordinary rendition"?

1. The act of rendering.
2. An interpretation of a musical score or a dramatic piece.
3. A performance of a musical or dramatic work.
4. A translation, often interpretive.
5. A surrender.
6. Clicking to quickly with a spellchecker?

I'm confused. I bet you mean 2. Them-there A-rab's sure can sing.

 

[blndrhed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

Extraordinary rendition, considered by critics to be a euphemism for what is in actuality torture by proxy, is a procedure believed to be used by the government of the United States and other Western countries whereby foreign suspects are sent to another country for interrogation under less humane conditions. Although it is known that torture is likely to occur, the dispatching country hopes to avoid being viewed as in default of its humanitarian commitments. As described in various reports in the media, individuals to whom it is applied are arrested, blindfolded, shackled, and sedated, and transported by private jet or other means to the destination. The U.S. agency involved may provide the relevant foreign intelligence service with a list of questions it wants answered. It is acknowledged and even expected that these suspects may be tortured despite official assurances to the contrary. Although Egypt has been the most common destination, suspected terrorists have been renditioned to other countries, such as Jordan and Syria.

 

[Mycroft]

Mycroft, I think you're going overboard with this "gulag" thing.
Here's the full speech. I suggest you read it.

Amnesty International Report 2005
Speech by Irene Khan
at Foreign Press Association

Maybe you missed the OP. They're trying to round up former prisoners of the Soviet Union to publicly back their "Gulag" statement. That's way above and beyond using the word in a speech, and even above and beyond using it in their report. You may well have had an argument with that no big deal, it was just the intro argument before, but Amnesty International just upped the ante. A lot.

 

[epepke]

"Don't you think that there's an enormous difference?" I asked him.

"Sure," he said, "but after all, it attracts attention to the problem of Guantanamo detainees."

And this is distinguishable from saying, "Hey, sure, the reasons for the Iraq invasion were bogus, based on bad intelligence or lies, but at least it got rid of Saddam" exactly how?

A quote from Frank Zappa is apropos here: "THE VERY BIG STUPID is a thing which breeds by eating The Future."

 

[Orwell]

Maybe you missed the OP. They're trying to round up former prisoners of the Soviet Union to publicly back their "Gulag" statement. That's way above and beyond using the word in a speech, and even above and beyond using it in their report. You may well have had an argument with that no big deal, it was just the intro argument before, but Amnesty International just upped the ante. A lot.

Sorry, I did miss that.

Anyway, now that i have seen it...
Who's trying to do that? Is it an official AI initiative, or the action of an over enthusiastic AI staffer? And, considering the amount of criticism levelled at them, what's so wrong about that?

See, AI has done so many good things in the past that I am more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[RandFan]

And this is distinguishable from saying, "Hey, sure, the reasons for the Iraq invasion were bogus, based on bad intelligence or lies, but at least it got rid of Saddam" exactly how?

Are you making a Tu Quoque argument? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think we are talking about AI.

 

[Orwell]

Oh, and in case I didn't make myself clear: I consider the amount of criticism they received after that "gulag of our times" comment exaggerated. That comment was one single phrase in a pretty long speech. It was a speech, not a report. I don't expect a speech to have the same level of objectivity as a written report.

It seems to me that by concentrating on this single figure of speech, the administration and its supporters are pretty much managing to make everyone ignore the rest of the speech. Concentrating on the more dubious claims of your opponent in order to discredit the more serious things he is saying is a standard and well known practice often employed by debaters (hell, I used it myself a couple of times). Of course, I have no proof that this is what the White House intended, but I'm sure that the spin doctors this administration employs are smart and unscrupulous enough to come up with it!

 

[RandFan]

Oh, and in case I didn't make myself clear: I consider the amount of criticism they received after that "gulag of our times" comment exaggerated. That comment was one single phrase in a pretty long speech. It was a speech, not a report. I don't expect a speech to have the same level of objectivity as a written report.

It seems to me that by concentrating on this single figure of speech, the administration and its supporters are pretty much managing to make everyone ignore the rest of the speech.

Words are important and when people use rhetoric in such an overtly political way then they should suffer the consequence of their stupidity. Cheney has made a some idiotic remarks lately and I have taken him to task for them. And note Cheney is a partisan politician. If AI would like responsibility I would suggest that they not act as such. I'm still with them but a little disapointed.

 

[Orwell]

Still, it seems to me that the full wording "Guantanamo has become the gulag our times, entrenching the notion that people can be detained without any recourse to the law." doesn't carry the same weight as simply saying "Guantanamo is a gulag". Anyway, I don't consider it to be serious enough to make me question their objectivity. And I perfectly understand their concern. I even share their concern about Guantanamo!

 

[RandFan]

Still, it seems to me that the full wording "Guantanamo has become the gulag our times, entrenching the notion that people can be detained without any recourse to the law." doesn't carry the same weight as simply saying "Guantanamo is a gulag". Anyway, I don't consider it to be serious enough to make me question their objectivity. And I perfectly understand their concern. I even share their concern about Guantanamo!

Cool, I think it's a sad and unfortunate sign of the direction of an important organization.

 

[normdoering]

Still, it seems to me that the full wording "Guantanamo has become the gulag our times, entrenching the notion that people can be detained without any recourse to the law." doesn't carry the same weight as simply saying "Guantanamo is a gulag". Anyway, I don't consider it to be serious enough to make me question their objectivity. And I perfectly understand their concern. I even share their concern about Guantanamo!

And Bush and Cheney would have dismissed any accusation no matter how accurately it was worded. The worst they can say is AI didn't use their language well -- yea, from Bush that's the pot calling the kettle black.

The other Bush administration charge, that AI is "political" and anti-American is so off the mark it should blow back and hurt them.

 

[RandFan]

The other Bush administration charge, that AI is "political" and anti-American is so off the mark it should blow back and hurt them.

Why?