Amnesty International & Hypocrisy

The Most Offensive Defence is A Spun Offence.

Published on June 8, 2005 By kingbee In Politics

gulag.

amazing that one small word can be so powerful or evoke such a horrific response.

i first became familiar with the concept while reading 'one day in the life of ivan denisovich' by alexander solzhenitsyn when i was still in grade school (clearly my recreational reading tastes were a bit precocious as well as extreme). for a week during the summer between 7th and 8th grade, i shivered in the heat and humidity of late july in da motah city as ivan and i--convict slave laborers--endured the frozen extremes of siberia and the brutally inhumane excesses of a pitiless totalitarian state that had nullified our lives.

why were we there? for how long would we remain? there was no way of knowing. worst of all, no one--least of all our former families and friends-- except those who kept us here and our fellow slaves knew for sure we even existed.

amnesty international's international report, released on may 25, 2005, characterizes as a gulag the facility at guantanamo, cuba where the us holds some of those captured in its war on terrorism. not surprisingly, the current administration refutes that designation. according to bush, it's an obvious case of disassembly (which he defines as lying).

not surprisingly, there are more than a few ju bloggers who are outraged by the amnesty international report.

the war on terror is an honorable endeavor being waged against those who hate us and are willing to go to any length to destroy us because--as our president has proclaimed--they hate freedom.

finally amnesty international has revealed its true agenda and shown it hates us and our freedom as well.

how could we have been so foolish as to believe that an organization which has, for years, despised the freedom enjoyed in north korea, china, vietnam, algeria, myanmar, the maldives, turkey, morroco, today's russia, the former soviet union and its eastern european colonies, chile (under pinochet), argentina, cuba, the sudan and dozens of other bastion of freedom countries wouldn't eventually add us to the list.?

fortunately we have plenty of examples on which to base our response---thanks to those nations for which this whole thing is old hat.

before we go there, let's clear something up. guantanamo isn't a network of slave labor camps in the wilds of siberia into which millions of our own citizens disappear, most never to return. hell, it's not even cold there.

on the other hand, perhaps amnesty international meant it figuratively. after all, there are 500 people who've been locked up in gitmo for nearly 3 years without ever having been charged with any crime. as far as they know, it could be another 20 years before they'll have a day in court. their families have no clue as to their status. no one except the force that's detaining them knows whether they're well or ill or alive.

nawwww. that couldn't be it.

ai has a lotta nerve. after all, didn't the president pledge in his 2nd inaugural address that the us was dedicated to spreading democracy and freedom. aren't we spending billions and putting our military into harm's way to do just that in iraq? if you can't trust our government, who can you trust?

(who better to answer that question than those of you who join heston in announcing that they'll have to pry your gun outta your cold dead hands. but then again, amnesty international doesn't own any guns huh?)

so anyway we're busy spreading freedom and democracy not only by deed but by example--certainly there's no better advertisement than good example--and all amnesty international can do is criticize us.

no wonder cheney took offense and won't take ai seriously. he's a flexible guy and just because he, the president and rumsfeld used to take them seriously enough to cite them multiple times in white house position papers on hussein's iraq Link (In August 2001 Amnesty International released a report entitled Iraq -- Systematic Torture of Political Prisoners, which detailed the systematic and routine use of torture against suspected political opponents and, occasionally, other prisoners. Amnesty International also reports "Detainees have also been threatened with bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee. Some of these threats have been carried out." ) , don't mean he cant change his mind. or maybe his mind is the same but amnesty international is different. ( i can hear him singing along with joe walsh...'everybody's so different, i'm still the same.' )

fact is, amnesty international provided a good deal of the source material used by bush, cheney and rumsfeld to justify their planned invasion of iraq. so having ai slam em now must really not bother them a bit because the organization just doesn't have any credibility

not that everything ai had to say about america was bad. they approved the supreme court ruling that requires a court hearing for prisoners of the 'war on terror'. big deal huh?

the final straw has to be ai's outrageous demands that the us stop secretly holding prisoners incommunicado (ghost prisoners), permit the international red cross access to all prisoners, ensure due process for all prisoners, implement an independent investigation of all allegations of torture and prosecute all who cause detainees to be brutalized or tortured while in the custody of the us.

if that sounds familiar, it's probably cuz those damn amnesty international freedom-haters stole it directly from past presidents who demanded the soviet union do the same thing at their gulags.

if all of this pisses you off, you're not alone.

i'm pissed off too. pissed off really badly that my country has engaged in the type of thing for which we used to condemn rogue states like north korea and the soviet union. pissed off that my president says he wants to promote democracy and freedom throughout the world while eroding the essentials of democracy and freedom at home. pissed off that such blatant hypocrisy is ignored and--even worse--approved by those who claim to be the most stalwart advocates of the rule of law and our constitution.

one final note: in another thread, one commentor said he was dismayed because amnesty international had diminished the horror of the gulag in its report. after all, there's no comparison. this same commentor claims to be a student of history. not a very good student in my opinion or he'd remember that gulags--like rome--aren't built in a day. once you lay the first stone, the next one is a little easier.

Comments (Page 10)

136

kingbee

on Jun 10, 2005

(NOTE: THIS IS COMMENT #69 POSTED BY MODERATE MAN. I REMOVED IT WITH HIS PERMISSION IN ORDER TO REPAIR A MISSING ENDQUOTE OR END TABLEDIV TAG THAT MADE THE PAGE DIFFICULT TO READ. FOR THE RESPONSE, PLEASE SEE COMMENT #71)

#67 by Texas Wahine
Thursday, June 09, 2005

I can remember, editing the nasty liberals complaining

about what tex? heh heh heh

137

Texas Wahine

on Jun 10, 2005

kingbee: Hehe...thanks for the kudos and the mind-reading. I'll be checking back with you next week for more information on what I'm thinking.

138

ericseba

on Jun 10, 2005

To Original Vune:

I've read of few of your posts in other blogs this morning. You are obviously a thoughtful young man, much more so than I was at your age. Look, I'm sorry if I have offended you by labeling you a liberal or a bleeding heart. By reading some of your other posts I can understand why you are so against the policies of Bush, yet unwilling to offer up an alternative if you know that you probably don't have the right answers. At least you are willing to admit that.

I'm a newb to this blog, but I sincerely look forward to reading your posts. I can tell you now that we could probably not be any more different, but that is the beauty of this, I would be bored stiff sitting around talking to people who agreed with me completely. Thanks for letting me know where you are from, I am always intrigued by the thoughts of people from across the pond. I have a customer in Middlesex and we talk on the phone at least every couple of weeks. I have another customer in Sweden who's wife is from America. She's lived in Stockholm for around 15 years now and couldn't hate America any more than she already does if she had to. I traveled to Sweden right after the invasion in Iraq. My customer is an old friend but we had some very heated discussions. In fact, his wife and I had to basically agree to not discuss the Iraq issue for fear of never being able to speak rationally again. They even suggested we not wear anything with an American flag while walking the streets.

Here's my perfect world scenario and I don't mean this to be spiteful, but it just seems to be the easy way out: Pull every last American troop from every foreign country. Advise all Americans that they are free to travel the world, but they are on their own. No embassies, not consulates, nothing. The US government should not own or rent property on any foreign soil; therefore they have no interest that they may be tempted to protect militarily. As ineffective as an institution as it is, the US should provide aid to the UN for charities and for building their own military force comprised entirely of Europeans, Africans, Asians and South Americans; the last I checked, the UN has never come to the defense of North America, Australia or Antartica. We should give up our seat in the UN and merely play a role as a monetary donor. Our borders should be closed, period. No visitors, foreign students, etc... We have telephones, vidoe phones, web cams and email, visiting for school or business should not be necessary. Israel will simply have to be on it's own or at the mercy of the UN. I guess we could offer a short period of amnesty to allow the arrival of any Jews that wanted to reside in the US. If they choose to stay in Israel to be close to holy sites, it would not be up to the US to defend them.

As to foreign policy, there would be none aside from free trade agreements. I would suggest that our leaders should refrain from even offering an opinion on the happenings of foreign countries, as our position or policies might make us a target of terrorist attacks. Our only defense should be our own borders. There would be no need for a Navy as we would only have a fighting force capable of repeling any invader. The Marines could be dismantled as they are a mobile fighting force that we would no longer require. As we would no longer be a part of the UN, we would also exclude ourselves from any international sporting competitions. The possibility exists that a terrorist could take our athletes hostage and we would be helpless as we have pledged to not spill another drop of American blood on foreign soil.

While I know this is an impossible dream, it would certainly be easier than the constant game of trying to not make the wrong policy decision and then having to protect ourselves from terrorist attacks.

139

ericseba

on Jun 10, 2005

have I got everyone deep in thought or have I effectively closed this blog/

140

zinkadoodle

on Jun 10, 2005

feel like I'm arguing in a schoolyard!

Not far from it, it seems. Very frustrating. I'm just finally reading this thread, and it's yet another repeat (no offense, Kingbee) of how these rightie JU's support Americans torturing Iraqis in the name of The War Against Terrorists, and get all aghast when Iraqis torture eachother. Huh?............. Let's sink to their barbaric standards, why don't we, and just pretty much guarantee that this "war" will go on and on and on for ever and ever and ever......................

141

kingbee

on Jun 10, 2005

Even as a conservative, I am deathly afraid of a religous state

hopefully all of us--especially conservatives who claim to be such staunch opponents of minimal government and and governmental interference in their lives--are as well.

just to be clear, i have no problem with religion or its adherents...as long as i'm not paying for it involuntarily or subject to its authority...please don't go there.

142

kingbee

on Jun 10, 2005

But, I really believe you are stretching it to say that if we deny due process to a guy who would walk away from our criminal justice system, we are "like our enemies

as a conservative you should be much more concerned about the results of making arbitrary exceptions--no matter how minor--to one of our core principles. the dispensation you call for today leads inevitably to one more in reaction to the next scary situation to confront us.

eventually there wont be any need to defend it cuz it wont exist.

143

kingbee

on Jun 10, 2005

it seems we have officially been keeping tabs on Bin Laden since the Spring of 1996, yet he was able to destroy two skyscrapers, part of pentagon and take a swipe at the White House all while killing everyone aboard four airliners.

Gee, it's a good thing we were keeping tabs on him, otherwise he might have gotten five buildings.

i'm guessing you were so busy heaping scorn on those who had the nerve to suggest the bush administration was too caught up in the fun of playing 'whitehouse' to pay sufficient attention to a buncha nuts with towels on their head. the last thing they wanted to hear was clinton's unsolicited advice or richard clarke's paranoid delusions.

144

bakerstreet

on Jun 10, 2005

"i'm guessing you were so busy heaping scorn on those who had the nerve to suggest the bush administration was too caught up in the fun of playing 'whitehouse' to pay sufficient attention to a buncha nuts with towels on their head. the last thing they wanted to hear was clinton's unsolicited advice or richard clarke's paranoid delusions."

What would the response have been pre-9/11 if they had started cracking down on Arabs here and abroad just because they had attended Al Quaeda training camps, or had indirectly been involved in planning attacks?

...Oooooh, wait. You don't need to imagine, that's what this blog is about. If we are getting this response to our actions now, just imagine what the smallest measures would have provoked with Amnesty International or the ACLU pre-9/11.

145

kingbee

on Jun 10, 2005

PBS is critizing the government for not acting on warnings about the bombings of the embassies in 1998 as well as the 9/11 attacks. Man the more I read about it, the more I realize how effective this "keeping tabs" stuff is. I mean what does PBS want, should we "preemptively" arrest a terrorist? Where would we hold him?

not acting on warnings = not keeping tabs. if you associate with a known bombmaker, the local cops are hopefully watchin him and wondering about you. once they have enuff evidence to indict you, there's nothing illegal or immoral about them taking you into custody. and guess what, attempted murder is a crime.

146

bakerstreet

on Jun 10, 2005

"if you associate with a known bombmaker, the local cops are hopefully watchin him and wondering about you. once they have enuff evidence to indict you, there's nothing illegal or immoral about them taking you into custody. and guess what, attempted murder is a crime."

Heavens, what a police state you have there, King. You wouldn't be suggesting that the police investigate crimes before they happen, would you?

That kind of thing is illegal in the US. Police are intended to react to crime, and PERHAPS prevent crime by their presence. They have never been allowed to investigate crimes before the fact, though. The only reason the secret service is allowed to investigate 'threats' is because the threat itself, the planning, is illegal.

To me, what you propose just sounds like a system that would ENSURE more Gitmos. It sounds almost like you are saying that instead of doing it under the table, we should legislate this kind of thing and make it commonplace.

147

kingbee

on Jun 10, 2005

here's an excerpt from the 2000 abstract of amnesty international's regional index dealing with afghanistan:

Human rights abuses by the warring factions against members of rival ethnic groups occurred throughout 1999. Taleban forces burned homes, destroyed orchards, wheat fields and irrigation systems and forcibly displaced more than 100,000 mainly Tajik people. The UN imposed financial and aviation sanctions on the Taleban for not surrendering Osama bin Laden to stand trial for his alleged involvement in US embassy bombings in August 1998. Women, children, human rights defenders, members of ethnic groups, people accused of homosexual activity, and refugees were systematically targeted by the Taleban and other warring factions on the basis of their identity. Taleban courts imposed sentences of death, amputation and flogging after apparently unfair trials.

Background
Hopes for a peaceful settlement of the conflict were dashed when military action by the Taleban escalated in August. In October, Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy, suspended his activities saying the new fighting had undermined his peace efforts. Neighbouring countries continued to support their favoured warring factions, promoting shared ethnic or religious interests, but denied reports of military involvement in, or transfer of weapons to, Afghanistan.

UN sanctions
In October a UN Security Council resolution called on the Taleban to “cease the provision of sanctuary and training for international terrorists and cooperate with efforts to bring indicted terrorists to justice”. It gave the Taleban one month to “turn over Osama bin Laden without further delay to appropriate authorities in a country where he has been indicted, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be returned to such a country, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be arrested and effectively brought to justice”. The Taleban did not comply and on 14 November the Security Council imposed sanctions requiring all states to “deny permission for any aircraft to take off from or land in their territory if it is owned, leased or operated by or on behalf of the Taliban... unless the particular flight has been approved in advance by [a monitoring] Committee on the grounds of humanitarian need, including religious obligation such as the performance of the Hajj”, and to “freeze funds and other financial resources, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the Taliban except as may be authorized by the Committee on a case-by-case basis on the grounds of humanitarian need”.

sounds like they woulda been happy to have bin laden and his terrorist associates arrested for their activities.

148

bakerstreet

on Jun 10, 2005

"sounds like they woulda been happy to have bin laden and his terrorist associates arrested for their activities."

No doubt. But as much as we like to put a face on our problems, bin Laden isn't that big of a deal. It is that bomb maker you mentioned, and the people that come and go from their houses. And the guy who stayed past his visa limit and bolted. And the guy that recruited people, bought box cutters, and carefully planned a terrorist attack.

THOSE people, Amnesty International and the ACLU would have defended to the death pre-9/11. That's why I find it so facetious when people are outraged that nothing was done. What really could have been done? We can't even get away with what it would have taken then NOW.

149

kingbee

on Jun 10, 2005

That kind of thing is illegal in the US. Police are intended to react to crime, and PERHAPS prevent crime by their presence. They have never been allowed to investigate crimes before the fact, though.

do tell.

either you haven't ever engaged in any criminal activities; you, your relatives, your friends and neighbors enjoy such sterling reputations that none of yall are ever on the usual suspect list or the local cops are heavily on the take. everywhere else in the us, when law enforcement trips over information that suggests a person is possibly involved in the manufacture of drugs or explosives or associating with others known to have done so in the past, may possibly be robbing banks, has a lotta visitors, etc. etc., it's very likely you'll start noticing a utility company van parked down the block.

150

bakerstreet

on Jun 10, 2005

"...when law enforcement trips over information that suggests a person is possibly involved in the manufacture of drugs or explosives or associating with others known to have done so in the past, may possibly be robbing banks, has a lotta visitors, etc. etc., it's very likely you'll start noticing a utility company van parked down the block."

But those are still after-the-fact investigations. Someone has already robbed banks or sold drugs. You are being investigated for conspiracy in an extant crime.

What many people who are outraged about our "laxness" pre-911 call for is investigation BEFORE the fact. Someone's visa expires, or they have voiced approval of terrorism, etc., so they are investigated as potential terrorists. I don't have a problem with judging potential, but Amnesty International does.

What many supposed 'liberals' complain we didn't do pre-9/11 legitimizes that behavior. It's all silly partisanship, anyway, because those same people throw a fit when we try to do anything of the sort NOW.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!