Gulag of Our Times

Here is a decently stated op-ed from WaPo related to the Amnesty International comments about the US and GITMO.

The crux I believe comes here:

There are many problems in Guantanamo. They deserve attention and criticism. But Guantanamo is not "the gulag of our times."

Yesterday Khan continued to defend her word choice, both at a news conference in Tokyo and in a letter published in The Post. Responding to a Post editorial reproaching her, Khan said the critique of her language "risked letting a semantic argument overshadow extraordinary and unlawful U.S. policy and actions." But that point applies most of all to Khan herself. By reaching for the incendiary phrase, she made it much easier for Bush and his administration to evade Amnesty's legitimate call for outside scrutiny of the practices at Guantanamo.

The argument here is appropriate. Guantanamo bay did have (and may still have) issues that should be of concern regarding human rights. Khan, by choosing to use the most inflammatory of descriptions of this prison has negated the ability to discuss the problem. By AI placing themselves in the context of an unreasonable critic, they have closed and locked the door to their being a participant in reasonable discussion.

I disagree on the need for outside scrutiny. A third party would be difficult to find who would be fair and detached. Between politics or anti-americanism, I don't see any organization that could come in a make a just analysis of what occurred or is occurring. Which leads to this:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) has introduced a bill to create a commission to study allegations of detainee abuse and point the way forward. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to hold hearings on the subject this month. These are not the actions of "absurd" people. They reflect the habits of truth-seekers and truth-tellers.

No they aren't absurd, but they are politicians. Not that much difference from my point of view. The results of the commission may be better than what you'd see out of AI though, and the balance of political points of view would likely force a more reasonable, if a touch watered down report.

Melana Zyla Vickers has a piece at TCS related to the topic. She has a link to an Al Quaeda Manual that gives some perspective. She does make some decent point here. Though the first is utter crap.

Which is why it's partly up to the U.S. public to keep some perspective on the torture and abuse issue.

First and foremost, torture, abuse, killing, good guys running amok, these are all standard features of war. They occurred in the past and will again in the future. "War is cruelty," Civil War Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman said, and its cruelty is part of the reason the U.S. tries to avoid going to war in the first place. But of course, we are at war.

Second, human-rights watchdogs and lawyers are a veritable cottage industry these days. Whatever the international conflict, there is always a group of them around, wringing their hands, making their names known to newspapers, and pointing out, as if for the first time, that war is hell (another Sherman quotation). They're often well-meaning. But they may be getting wagged by the Al Qaeda training handbook without even knowing - or refusing to believe - it could be so.

Third, it's essential to know the messenger. In this case, Amnesty, the hand-wringer of the week, is no friend of American foreign policy. The group, whose roots lie with early 20^th century leftists both here and in Britain, has always bent over backwards to make the capitalist U.S. look bad. Consider that the "Americas Regional Overview" in this 2005 annual report goes on at length about the U.S. and its detention camp, the U.S. and its horrible friend the government of Colombia, the U.S. and its evil counter-narcotics efforts in the region, yet makes not one mention of communist Fidel Castro's abominations in Cuba. Also, the report bends over backwards to blame the human-rights abuses of the quasi-communist Venezuelan government on those trying to unseat President Hugo Chavez.

Sorry, the "War is Cruelty" meme doesn't follow and is irrelevant. These are prison camps and are outside of the active theater. There should be no related passions that could be seen in an active fight, so this carries no weight.

The second point, though conjecture, is totally logical. What did every enemy learn from Vietnam? That the US public can't stomach anything bad happening during war or involving our military. This leads to an easily accessible conduit of propaganda, through our own MSM, to spread allegations of abuse whether they are true or not. The related paranoia of large portions of the citizenry also negate the ability of the government to even discuss the allegations, never mind refute them.

The third point is pretty much a fact of AI's existence. They have consistently over time have always found fault with minor issues of the US while ignoring other countries crimes. It doesn't help their case to be seen as a loud critic of the US and blind to much more serious offenders. The complete lack of perspective in world human rights violations gives them little credence when their veracity is questioned.

Lastly, there is this op-ed by Brian Richards. For balance. (from the unbalanced)

This article deserves a fisking, being unreasonable and for cherry picking his definition of gulag. This piece does clearly show the unreasoned and inflammatory rhetoric that is coming out about the AI report. It's short, so you can read it and be irritated on your own.