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 6)

Texas Wahine

on Jun 09, 2005

I am going to type real slow so maybe you will understand.

You know, your condescension is very unflattering.

I don't care about the "appropriate" guidelines.

That says a lot about you. If you followed the link I posted, you would find some great information...answers. The link gave a detailed account of methods used and considered for use, their level of success, where they were used, the legality of such methods, etc.

Once again, these people have been taught from birth, by their church, that we are all evil (even your bleeding heart) and we should all die.

I would appreciate it if you would not make assumptions about me. First of all, I do have a bit of an understanding about the terrorist mindset, and second of all, do not label me.

These men did not come here and target just military installations; no they hit two buildings with the express purpose of killing as many American CITIZENS as humanly possible.

No, the men in Gitmo did NOT hit (three, not two, please don't downplay the horror that took place at the Pentagon, or loss of the men and women who died in the downed plane) the buildings.

The detainees at Gitmo may be confirmed terrorists, with some suspected terrorists mixed in, but let's get our facts straight, shall we?

Considering what we are up against with these people, I want YOUR answer, I don't want to google and find the bleeding heart guide to "asking a radical Muslim to please tell me where I can find his fellow terrorist buddies".

You didn't read the link, did you?

I want you, Mr. intellectual liberal to tell me how we should get information out of these guys that will lead us to their buddies out there plotting how to kill us and get to heaven.

Again, are you able to post without labels? I'm not a male, so you can drop the "Mr."

Let's say that you knew that you could save as many lives as were lost in the trade center attacks if you could only get some terrorist to give you the info; would you honestly stick to your principles and allow their deaths? My guess is unfortunately yes you would.

You don't know shit about me, so don't assume. Let me ask you this, have you served in the military? You're big with the gung-ho talk, so have you backed it up with action?

ericseba

on Jun 09, 2005

I am going to type real slow so maybe you will understand. No smug comments, a real answer is what I am looking for.

You see, even typing slow did no good, you have yet again ducked one simple question with another bunch of smug comments. I am sincerely asking for what you think we should do with these guys. When I say "these guys" I mean radical Muslims bred from the same cloth as the guys who attacked us on 9/11; who believe the killing of Americans will get them to paradise loaded with 70 virgins. Don't get technical, obviously the men who died during the 9/11 attacks are not at Gitmo, but they are the same breed. Again, you try to attack me with your "liberal intellect". You are only muddying the waters and avoiding answering a very difficult question that our president is forced to answer on a daily basis.

As to your link; I don't care about the link, I don't care about someone else's opinion. I actually did follow the link and the long and short of what I found is they were unable to decide if Americans were assholes or not.

Follow your own link and go to the last couple of lines "It is not true, as many in the Arab world believe, that the United States has embarked on a reckless campaign of torture and abuse of its Arab prisoners of war. But what has happened—a slow slide from coherent, consistent standards for interrogation and treatment of prisoners to a sometimes ad-hoc, occasionally brutal search for information at all costs—should warrant public outcry. That it has not suggests either that this shift doesn't interest us because it affects outsiders, or that we no longer consider torture or near-torture to be beyond the bounds of civil conduct."

Okay so they are saying in their opinion that we should have a public outcry about possible abuses (they obviously have not been to this board). If we are not crying, it means that as Americans we don't care because it is happening to outsiders or we no longer consider torture outside the bounds of civil conduct. This is exactly my point, I believe torture is a horrible thing. I wish these people had never put us in the position to have to resort to torture. I wish 9/11 had never happened. I wish we weren't even having to discuss this crap, but we have to because those radical Muslims have made this our reality. These people from the Slate mourn that we have experienced a "slow slide from a coherent, consistent standards for interrogation and treatment of prisoners", yet like you, they can't seem to grasp that we are making things up as we go because we have never faced an enemy like this. We can't use conventional methods on people who believe that martyrdom will give them an express ticket to paradise.

I am asking you, Ms. Bleeding Heart to tell me what YOU would do. Please don't send me another link. Try to break the liberal mold and have your own coherent thought aside from contradicting the opposition. You say I don't know shit about you. Well tell me something about you: I repeat, Let's say that you knew that you could save as many lives as were lost in the trade center attacks if you could only get some terrorist to give you the info; would you honestly stick to your principles and allow their deaths? Or would you do whatever it took to get that info? Again, no smug comments. I'll tell you the truth, I would torture, kill or maim however many radical Muslims it took in order to provide for the safety of you and I. I would hate them for making go to that level, btu I owuld do it. Call me inhuman if you like, but I am at least giving an honest answer without hiding behind a simple contradictory opinion.

ericseba

on Jun 09, 2005

You don't know shit about me, so don't assume. Let me ask you this, have you served in the military? You're big with the gung-ho talk, so have you backed it up with action?

Sorry, I forgot to address that issue. I served in the Air Force after graduation from high school in 1987 until 1991. While I was put on alert during the first Gulf war, I was never called into action. I guess I can't give you a list of medals, but I assure you, if I were needed to get the information out of a terrorist that would save American lives, I would literally stop at nothing to do so. I say that without complete conviction and with no shame.

Dr Guy

on Jun 09, 2005

Again, are you able to post without labels? I'm not a male, so you can drop the "Mr."

Forgive him, he is a newbie!

ericseba

on Jun 09, 2005

Forgive him, he is a newbie!

Sorry, I did use the proper label in the next post.

Texas Wahine

on Jun 09, 2005

Forgive him, he is a newbie!

I'm not going to forgive someone who makes asinine assumptions and cannot communicate beyond vomitting out a barrage of talking points and insults.

I would like a bit of common courtesy in our little debate, but newbie is unable to afford me that.

Texas Wahine

on Jun 09, 2005

You see, even typing slow did no good, you have yet again ducked one simple question with another bunch of smug comments.

Smug comments? Gee, that's not what that is, is it?

I am sincerely asking for what you think we should do with these guys. When I say "these guys" I mean radical Muslims bred from the same cloth as the guys who attacked us on 9/11; who believe the killing of Americans will get them to paradise loaded with 70 virgins. Don't get technical, obviously the men who died during the 9/11 attacks are not at Gitmo, but they are the same breed. Again, you try to attack me with your "liberal intellect". You are only muddying the waters and avoiding answering a very difficult question that our president is forced to answer on a daily basis.

The issue is, not all of the men in the detention centers are guilty. This is evidenced by the mass release of prisoners in the past, and recently.

Do you believe that we should become the monster we are fighting? Does America have no standards? Should we sink to their level?

I have no problem with the existence of detention centers. They do serve an important purpose. However, holding "ghost prisoners" and subjecting the prisoners to abuse (and by that I do mean real abuse, not "we touched the Koran with our bare hands" or "we sent a badly behaving prisoner to solitary confinement") is WRONG.

Are we so zealous and revenge-seeking that we would adopt an "anything goes" attitude toward our actions in the middle east?

(BTW...there's no need to throw around terms like "liberal intellect" or lecture me about the actions, beliefs, and desires of terrorists. I am well-aware.)

Follow your own link and go to the last couple of lines "It is not true, as many in the Arab world believe, that the United States has embarked on a reckless campaign of torture and abuse of its Arab prisoners of war. But what has happened—a slow slide from coherent, consistent standards for interrogation and treatment of prisoners to a sometimes ad-hoc, occasionally brutal search for information at all costs—should warrant public outcry. That it has not suggests either that this shift doesn't interest us because it affects outsiders, or that we no longer consider torture or near-torture to be beyond the bounds of civil conduct."

If you had read my post, you would have noticed that I directed you to the Taxonomy of Torture section of the article, which featured a run-down of interrogation methods. There are plenty of interrogation methods that are legal for us to chose from...there is no need to maim or murder a prisoner. The article at large has no bearing on my beliefs, and in fact, I have not read it.

I wish these people had never put us in the position to have to resort to torture.

THAT'S the problem I have. We don't HAVE to resort to torture. Many of the actual torture techniques are proven to be ineffective. We are not terrorists, and we should not behave as terrorists.

Initially, Operation Enduring Freedom was to be labeled Operation Infinite Justice. Is beating a detainee to death or sodomizing him with a chem stick justice? Did we get any great information from that?

yet like you

Again, I would appreciate if you would stop making assumptions about me.

I am asking you, Ms. Bleeding Heart to tell me what YOU would do.

No need for the name-calling. Tex is fine. (Mrs. is correct, btw)

Well tell me something about you: I repeat, Let's say that you knew that you could save as many lives as were lost in the trade center attacks if you could only get some terrorist to give you the info; would you honestly stick to your principles and allow their deaths? Or would you do whatever it took to get that info?

If you believe that our military intelligence depends on our maiming detainees in order to stop imminent attacks, then you are deluded.

The answer is NO. Our Soldiers are not terrorists. They are not monsters. The follow standards and guidelines. Those who don't, are prosecuted.

I would hate them for making go to that level

Just like my 8 year old would hate his brother for taking his Darth Vader action figuring and making him punch him in the nose?

This type of attitude undermines the concepts of personal responsibility, honor, and restraint.

I served in the Air Force after graduation from high school in 1987 until 1991.

Thank you for your service.

ericseba

on Jun 09, 2005

Ducking the question still? This is not a debate, you won't have a debate. I have told you how I feel and you cannot do likewise. I am not vomiting talking points. I don't use links and news stories to make my point. I am telling you how I feel in my heart of hearts. You continue to prove my point by continually attacking my comments and questioning whether I have backed up what I talk, all while not offering a coherent thought of your own. That is not an assumption, that is a fact and it is why the democratic party continues to lose their hold on this country. Many people may have disagreed with Bush but the Democrats did not give an alternative leadership model, they only attacked the opposition. People want a leader, not a whiner who is only capable of disagreeing with the current leadership without offering their own platform. Merely disagreeing with the opposition is not a platform.

Joe Biden says we should shut down Gitmo. “But the end result is, I think we should end up shutting it down, moving those prisoners,” he told ABC’s “This Week.” “Those that we have reason to keep, keep. And those we don’t, let go.” He added, “I think more Americans are in jeopardy as a consequence of the perception that exists worldwide with its existence than if there were no Gitmo.” He is offering no solution other than moving the prisoners to as different location and keeping only the ones that we have a reason to keep. Well if they are there, we must feel there is a reason to keep them.

Please forgive my newbishness, but I am truly interested in hearing your answer to my previous questions. Once I have then we can call it a debate.

Texas Wahine

on Jun 09, 2005

Ducking the question still?

Ahem...read post #83.

I have told you how I feel and you cannot do likewise.

I have made my point of view clear throughout my posts.

I don't use links and news stories to make my point.

Links and news stories add credibility to the points that you make. Get used to them, because you will be expected to back up your claims with research here.

You continue to prove my point by continually attacking my comments and questioning whether I have backed up what I talk, all while not offering a coherent thought of your own.

Do you even know what you're saying? Coherent? Hahahaha...

That is not an assumption, that is a fact and it is why the democratic party continues to lose their hold on this country.

I am not a member of the Democratic Party, so you can drop that.

Please forgive my newbishness, but I am truly interested in hearing your answer to my previous questions. Once I have then we can call it a debate.

In case you haven't noticed, I am not calling for the closure of our detention centers. I stand firmly against torture, murder, and holding prisoners indefinitely without charge. Where these problems exist, they should be eradicated. Changing these things will not hinder our ability to hold prisoners who belong in the centers, nor will it prevent us from obtaining intelligence from prisoners who posses such information.

This is not any party platform, and I could care less what Democratic talking heads or Republican talking heads have to say about it. This is what I believe is right and appropriate for a moral and just nation such as ours.

ericseba

on Jun 09, 2005

Thanks for answering the question. Please disregard my last post # 84 as you did answer me with a resounding NO.

Thank you for your service.

Please don't thank me. You find the levels that I would stoop to in order to ensure your safety to be terroristic and monstrous and comparable to your son's anger over an action figure (and you were offended by the "Mr." title).

Texas Wahine

on Jun 09, 2005

I do find the idea of someone with your mindset working in one of our detention centers frightening, however, that does not diminish my gratitude for your willingness to serve.

Moderateman

on Jun 09, 2005

I guess my comment about amnesty international NEVER having stepped foot in gitmo was not worthy of a reply kingbee.

kingbee

on Jun 09, 2005

I guess my comment about amnesty international NEVER having stepped foot in gitmo was not worthy of a reply kingbee

don't guess so much. some of us have obligations ya know...i hadda step foot into the world cuz i was behind schedule on making up last month's 'self-satisfying acts of condescension towards others' quota. oh and i also had to dupe some morons into signing my petition asking the aclu to sue the city for using the religious term 'crosswalk' as a description for pedestrian street transit zones.

now that i'm back...you're contending ai couldnt possibly know hundreds of people are being held against their will without due process in guantanamo because ai isn't permitted access to the facility?

good point. but don't spread it around too much. if this gets out, all the really evil dictators will realize how easily they can avoid being exposed by simply not allowing amnesty international to be eyewitnesses to rights abuses.

kingbee

on Jun 09, 2005

mm can you please go to this article at my blog site and edit comment#69 by adding an end quote tag (i think it needs to go right after the word 'complaining') so this page isnt all screwed up? just type one of these < then /td then > and hit submit.

otherwise, please permit me to delete that comment (i'll copy the text and replace it...clearly attributing it to you). thnx

kingbee

on Jun 09, 2005

Frankly, yes, many of the people who survive in Japan and Germany that hated us then still voice the same opinions of us now.

i don't know how this can be proved or disproved. if you're talking solely about odessa or rogue clerics, you're right. there may also be a similar group of unrepentant japanese military imperialists (aggrieved survivors of hiroshima and nagasaki are another story). they're hardly representative of either citizenry.

What the Dr. and others are trying to point out is that you are imposing a standard that simply doesn't exist. We don't consult a judge before we shoot someone on the battlefied, and we don't bring terrorists into US courts and treat them like ordinary criminals. The system wasn't made for it.

it's my understanding the detainees in guantanamo are supposed to be more than mere combatants. if that's the case, why have other combatants been held in afghan prisons? as i recall, they were considered to be hardcore members of al quaeda who possessed critical information about the group and its plans...and the plan was to get as much information out of them as possible while preventing them from implementing any missions they'd been assigned and finally charge them for crimes they'd committed, facilitated or or conspired to commit.

that was the explanation for the extraordinary security measures at the camp as well as for keeping them totally isolated and incommunicado.

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!