UPDATED: Fisking Amnesty, Persevering After Moral Compromise
Thanks to powerline for the tip: from NRO, a careful examination of Amnesty International’s foolish comparison of Gitmo to the Soviet gulag.
Amnesty International is paying a hard price for its PR cheap shot, and it should. (See this Washington Post editorial.) Amnesty’s current leadership inhabits a self-referential echo chamber, and over the next few months will find that there is such a thing as bad publicity, particularly when an organization relies on “moral principles and human rights” An organization with genuine moral principles and genuine respect for human rights must be able to distinguish between scattered crime and focused genocide, between criminal actions at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo (on the one hand) and 9/11, the Taliban, Bali, Saddam, suicide bombers (etc) on the other. Koran flushing? Does anyone remember the Taliban’s destruction of the Buddas of Bamiyan? Does Amnesty? Amnesty has cheapened the language of suffering, and for an organization espousing Amnesty’s principles, this is a grievous error.
Here’s the beginning of a column I wrote on September 25, 2001.
Every war is complex, chaotic, physically and emotionally debilitating and — no matter how right the cause — at some point morally compromised. This war (i.e., The War on Terror) will be no different. America’s biggest strategic challenge will be one as old as war itself: maintaining the will to persevere and pursue the task of victory despite understandable fears, gnawing doubts, the occasional coward and inevitable body bags.
Yes– two weeks after 9/11.
I included this quote in a speech I gave to the Houston World Affairs Council in early November 2001. During question and answer, a seventy-ish man in the audience (well dressed, white hair) stood up and with red-faced anger demanded that I tell him why I said all wars are ultimately morally compromised. How could I say that after 9/11? You could have heard the proverbial pin drop. I replied ” That’s history. All endeavors of this magnitude, at some point, are morally compromised, because people are involved. That’s why you have to maintain perspective when it happens. You’ll be embarrassed, you’ll have doubts, but you’ll have to focus on the long-haul.” After the speech thirty or so people continued to ask questions. As that clatch broke up, here came the red-faced fellow. I got a good look at his suit, too — gray silk, immaculate. But he surprised me. He spoke in a forceful but calm voice. “I’m very upset by what you said…but I’ve thought about it…You’re right. That’s what happens.” He told me he was a retiree, and he had been senior vice-president of an international oil company. I am certain, given the job he described, he had had to deal with huge corporate mistakes and –at some point– criminal activity by individuals. A leader has to deal with the mistakes, punish the crimes, and continue to press on.
The collective leadership of Amnesty International –in pursuit of a public relations coup– has demonstrated an inexcusable historical blindness. The false frame of moral equivalency compounds their mistake.
UPDATE: A reminder on the rules for comments. No obscenities, no unsubstantiated charges, and no name-calling. Out of the hundreds of comments on this site since January I’ve only had to delete ten or eleven, but violate the rules and you’ll get deleted. If you insist on comments like that, there are places on the Internet that thrive on them– there’s a place for you, go there. Yes, you’ll find a few obscenities cropping up, including one by a vet who opted for a touch of drill sergeant realism– it worked stylistically and his comment is the exception that proves the rule. There are a few comments that push the edge on name-calling, but I realize people often write in a fit of passion. There are examples of commenters posting apologies or “thoughtful clarifications.” None of us are perfect. Which leads to this: The comments addressing the demand for perfection on behalf of the US are very thoughtful. Thanks. The hysterics who constantly grind about Abu Ghraib fail to comprehend the depth of anger and embarrassment felt by US soldiers. The actions at Abu Ghraib are shameful and criminal. But there is a larger perspective, and there is the healing effect of one’s own positive efforts. Some of the hysterics lack that positive channel and certainly lack the broader, positive perspective direct, sustained service in Iraq and Afghanistan gives the troops.
UPDATE 2: Provocative post from Roger L. Simon. He’s as disappointed in Amnesty as I am, and points to a possible cause of Amnesty’s mistake.
UPDATE 3: I guess I have to put this up again. I still belong to Amnesty because of what the organization does for forgotten political prisoners in many of the world’s hard corners. They are welcome to investigate US criminal behavior– as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, Americans make mistakes and commit crimes, too. The US also tends to investigate the crimes and prosecute the criminals and then we discuss crimes, criminals, intention and detention, often ad infinitum (welcome to liberty and freedom of speech). What’s at issue is the inexcusable historical comparison between focused genocide and individual criminal behavior. Amnesty has cheapened and diminished the language of suffering. Their defense that “we went after Saddam” is pitifully weak and is a deflection operation that once again attempts to use the false frame of “moral equivalency.” The gulag accusation hurts the organization, and at some level its leaders know it. Amnesty’s leaders could beat their own mistake by coolly retracting the gulag comparison and then insisting they stand for the human rights of prisoners everywhere, even the rights of mass murdering terrorists. Now that would be a tough, principled action — accepting responsibility for a mistake and then making a plea for the fair, just treatment of prisoners. But I doubt if the organization’s leaders have the class and wits to do this. As part of the PR campaign they wanted a tussle with the Bush Administration. They got that– but because of their inexcusable excess the argument’s not framed the way their corporate PR mavens planned it. It’s “meme blowback.” This entire, sad incident suggests that Amnesty’s leadership cadre desperately needs some real diversity. In this time of ugly, intricate, and global warfare it needs leaders with maturity and balance.
Let’s end this with the Washington Post editorial’s final points (see link in the original post):
…But we draw the line at the use of the word “gulag” or at the implication that the United States has somehow become the modern equivalent of Stalin’s Soviet Union. Guantanamo Bay is an ad hoc creation, designed to contain captured enemy combatants in wartime. Abuses there — including new evidence of desecrating the Koran — have been investigated and discussed by the FBI, the press and, to a still limited extent, the military. The Soviet gulag, by contrast, was a massive forced labor complex consisting of thousands of concentration camps and hundreds of exile villages through which more than 20 million people passed during Stalin’s lifetime and whose existence was not acknowledged until after his death. Its modern equivalent is not Guantanamo Bay, but the prisons of Cuba, where Amnesty itself says a new generation of prisoners of conscience reside; or the labor camps of North Korea, which were set up on Stalinist lines; or China’s laogai , the true size of which isn’t even known; or, until recently, the prisons of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
Worrying about the use of a word may seem like mere semantics, but it is not. Turning a report on prisoner detention into another excuse for Bush-bashing or America-bashing undermines Amnesty’s legitimate criticisms of U.S. policies and weakens the force of its investigations of prison systems in closed societies. It also gives the administration another excuse to dismiss valid objections to its policies as “hysterical.”
“morally compromised” Quite a deft turn of phrase. The other day a Jon Carroll wrote a piece saying that media operations, like all human endeavors, are fraught with error and compromise so the media critics should take a pill. I endorse that sentiment as regards the GWOT. It seems that the critics of the war will accept only metaphysical perfection in its execution. Any divergence from that invalidates the whole enterprise. This ahistorical and hysterical viewpoint is what is reflected in AI’s offensive comparisons. Haven’t any of these people read Solzhenitsyn?
Comment by megapotamus — 6/1/2005 @ 9:09 am
Opponents of the war seek metaphysical perfection because they wish to undermine US efforts to defeat forces that their narrative see as being on the right side of history. A combination of political realism and self delusion prevents them from directly proclaiming their support for radical Islam or Saddam so they nitpick US policies in the hope that they can cause a US defeat in Iraq and the larger GWOT
Comment by jerry — 6/1/2005 @ 9:23 am
“No, they haven’t read Solzhenitsyn.” Nor much history either, for that matter. War is, always has been, and always will be a horrible thing. When nations and cultures go to war outrageous acts and barbarisms will follow. The real issue is to what extent the cultures and governments of the respective sides try to suppress such behaviors and punish the perpetrators thereof. Thus the “report” in question here stands historical perspective on its head. I can’t even think of a historical example where one side has taken such pains to enforce humanitarian standards, while the other has publicly revelled in outrage, war crimes, and attrocities. Da_Wiz Sends
Comment by Outlaw_Wizard — 6/1/2005 @ 9:45 am
Andrew Sullivan should read this the next time he gets the urge to demand absolute perfection from our side.
Comment by John — 6/1/2005 @ 9:49 am
According to a “One World” report reprinted by FrontPageMagazine, Amnesty International also called for the arrest of Bush, Rumsfeld, and Gonzalez for being war criminals, such arrest to be carried out by unspecified foreign governments if any of these gentleman ventured onto their soil. From where I sit, this request–if accurately reported–goes beyond moralist posturing. This calls for an assault on the President of the United States by other countries, “in the name” of human rights, international justice, etc. Amnesty hasn’t just lost its credibility; it’s gained another sort of credibility altogether, namely by reason of their aligning themselves publicly and well-nigh explicity with the Jihadists. We now know “who they are,” and what side they fight on.
Comment by Michael McCanles — 6/1/2005 @ 9:51 am
The Amnesty International report It’s painful to see what has happened to an organization once held in almost unanimous esteem. As the Guardian reports:…
Trackback by Cronaca — 6/1/2005 @ 9:59 am
I also like the conclusion of the Cronaca commentary: “And if Amnesty’s obsession with indicting the USA has led it to trivialize the worst crimes of the 20th century, we shouldn’t be surprised to see it similarly diverted from giving due weight to the worst of the 21st.”
Comment by Sarah — 6/1/2005 @ 10:08 am
Wow, so when Donal Rumsfield quoted an Amnesty report that said how horrible things were in Iraq under Saddam, Amnesty was a great and accurate resource. Now that Amnesty says something bad about US policy, they are an evil bunch of liars. It depresses me that we have come to a point in history when all events, and all organizations are “relative.” There no longer is a single point of acceptable truth.
Comment by Wil The Coyote — 6/1/2005 @ 10:16 am
“One knows about the contempt that hides behind charity… Obscenity is never the cruelty of evil, but the sentimentality of concern.” I do agree with Baudrillard on this one. Of course they require metaphysical perfection, because they cannot allow that the “other” is their equal. Now that we have stopped pitying our enemies (since 9/11) and have begun to fight them, the left has descended into madness, their philosophy of moral superiority challenged at its very core. It will be interesting to see the outcome.
Comment by Patricia — 6/1/2005 @ 10:26 am
“It depresses me that we have come to a point in history when all events, and all organizations are “relative.†There no longer is a single point of acceptable truth”. Which is exactly the point. You can accuately report that one fellow committed murder and the other wore mismatched sox; however, when you then claim their respective failings are morally equivelent because you hate the man with the mismatched sox, you have become dishonest (at least).
Comment by Dan — 6/1/2005 @ 10:33 am
Does anyone out there have any idea as to where they get the major source of their funding? I for one will never give one penny to any charitable umbrella organization that passes along money to these people. And I really doubt that they would maintain their high moral principles if there was any real threat to their money line.
Comment by tcobb — 6/1/2005 @ 10:35 am
Wil: “Wow, so when Donal Rumsfield quoted an Amnesty report that said how horrible things were in Iraq under Saddam, Amnesty was a great and accurate resource.” To the leftist reporters he was talking to at the time? Yes. If you want to make yourself understood to a duck, you quack.
Comment by Tom — 6/1/2005 @ 10:38 am
Wil the Coyote, it depresses me that you and so many “anti-US anythingers” see anything remotely similar between what has transpired with our prisoners and Saddam’s. Our troops our singularly handicapped in the GWOT by the restrictions our military and society have placed upon them…however that is what makes this country so great. At least we are TRYING to do the right thing as often as we can. The other side sincerely believes murdering innocents is a good thing in the name of Islam. When the GWOT returns to our soil, as is inevitable, and you see friends, family, just other Americans murdered…I wonder if you will still feel such sympathy for the perpetrators and those such as Amnesty International who give them such vocal support?
Comment by Marshall — 6/1/2005 @ 10:41 am
I’m surprised that Amnesty International hasn’t been taken on before. It’s nice to see that some folks are starting to stand up to them.
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 6/1/2005 @ 10:43 am
Wow, so when Donal Rumsfield quoted an Amnesty report that said how horrible things were in Iraq under Saddam, Amnesty was a great and accurate resource. Now that Amnesty says something bad about US policy, they are an evil bunch of liars. Explain precisely how the US has become the modern equivalent of Stalin’s Soviet Union. Reconcile this with our observation of their dietary and religious edicts, to name but two areas. Then look up “perspective”. Compare and contrast this with AI’s charge. Sheesh, even the Washington Post condemned AI for its “vitriolic” attack. Educate yourself. Learn the facts.
Comment by Paul in NJ — 6/1/2005 @ 10:52 am
I don’t see why anyone is surprised. Amnesty has always taken the side of murderers and terrorists. They have never been able to distinguish between true political prisoners and barbarians. This is just the next logical step for them, one which many people I know have taken a long time ago, and one that was forced on me by college way back in the late 80s. I used to think that it was a case of us being harder on ourselves because we expect more from ourselves, but ever since 9/11, seeing the vitriol and hate and ludicrous positions these groups have taken, I no longer believe that they want the best for everyone. They want America to be humbled, plain and simple.
Comment by Pluto's Dad — 6/1/2005 @ 10:55 am
It’s too bad they (AI) will share in our victory. I get a certain sick pleasure at the thought of them in burquas, or even (forgive me) having their heads cut off by the side they are helping. Lenin’s “useful idiots” redux.
Comment by MarkD — 6/1/2005 @ 11:08 am
I don’t think using Amnesty international to verify humans rights violations in Iraq necessarily means Rumsfeld thinks much of it. However it lends great weight to something when an anti-government NGO agrees with the government, without necessarily saying that the anti-government NGO is suddenly unbiased. Kinda like how the press uses McCain saying something pro-Democrat as evidence doesn’t mean McCain is automatically credible if he makes an anti-Democrat attack later…
Comment by McAristotle — 6/1/2005 @ 11:09 am
And what Amnesty Internation often glosses over is that many of these folks were captured enemy combatants - folks who had been shooting at American/Afghan/Coalition forces prior to their capture. It would also be interesting to note how many of these folks ended up being captured again after they were released.
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 6/1/2005 @ 11:19 am
If you want to see how ridiculous it is, I totalled the pages of each country in the Amnesty report. The USA gets the most space of course, 3 times as much as Cuba, twice as much as Pakistan and even North Korea (for heaven’s sake, even Switzerland and Spain get more attention from Amnesty than North Korea!). The US gets more pages than any other single country in the world, including those human rights icons of Iran, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia. Quantitative results: http://noonshadow.blogspot.com/2005/05/amnesty-points-out-top-human-rights.html
Comment by Kosmopolit — 6/1/2005 @ 11:21 am
Isn’t interesting how everything is relative (”one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”) until we compare the Gitmo to the Soviet gulag? Where is all than “nuanced” understanding from the Left? Same place, I suppose, as their understanding of conservative Christians versus Islamo-fascists. Talk about your Black and White vision. Pfah!
Comment by JorgXMcKie — 6/1/2005 @ 11:38 am
Amnesty International: The moral idiots of our time Yahoo News reports: Amnesty Takes Aim at ‘Gulag’ in Guantanamo LONDON - Amnesty International branded the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay a human rights failure Wednesday, calling it “the gulag of our time” as it released a report that offer…
Trackback by The Unalienable Right — 6/1/2005 @ 11:48 am
So Much For International Law from the recent public statements of AIUSA Exec.Dir William Schulz : If the U.S. government continues to shirk their responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign government to investigate senior U.S. officials. If those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them.” Amnesty is essentially advocating kidnapping and extortion. No international treaty concerning human rights allows a government to independently try an official from a foreign government, nor to unilaterally pursue the arrest and imprisonment of foreign officials - this is what the ICC is purportedly for. But recourse to the ICC is conspicuously absent from any of Shulz’s statements - he’s ACTUALLY ADVOCATING THAT ANY STATE THAT DETERMINES THAT IS CAN PROSECUTE CHARGES AGAINST ANY ‘SENIOR’ U.S. OFFICIAL UNDER THE FINDINGS OF A LOCALLY DEFINED INVESTIGATION CAN ARREST AND PROSECURE ANY U.S. OFFICIAL. Notice that this statement does not restrict these arrests and prosecutions to those individuals deemed responsibe, they advocate that any US official can be arrested. This constitutes advocacy of extortion as well as false imprisonment.
Comment by max — 6/1/2005 @ 12:06 pm
“All endeavors of this magnitude, at some point, are morally compromised, because people are involved. That’s why you have to maintain perspective when it happens. You’ll be embarrassed, you’ll have doubts, but you’ll have to focus on the long-haul.†It took me longer than two weeks to formulate this thought — it occurred to me later, when I was thinking about some of our errors. This is why I love the blogosphere. Mr. Bay’s insight here is as important as it is rare in the broader public debate.
Comment by kimhill — 6/1/2005 @ 12:12 pm
Contrary to the organization’s bylaws stricly banning directors from contributing to political campaigns, several of Amnesty International’s directors have contributed to Democractic Party candidates and political action committies, including Kerry for President & Move-on.org link: http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_mpetrelis_archive.html#111764009221745245
Comment by Kenneth — 6/1/2005 @ 12:30 pm
Guys, before we all jump on the “discredit-the-latest-organization-to-rail-on-the-U.S.” bandwagon, we’ve got to realize that Amnesty was riding the wave the rest of the world is surfing on right now. Whether it’s true or not, the foreign papers and pundits have been slamming - absolutely slamming - the states over the Koran flushing, human-rights-abuses and all the hundreds of deaths in and around the dangerous mess Iraq has become. Here in South Africa, and I’m sure in other third-party foreign countries without a stake in the Fundamentalist Islam v. America battle people are nodding their heads and counting the report as just another nail in the U.S.’s coffin, just another report that adds fuel to the powderkeg that America sometimes seems oblivious exists. It’s getting bad when the Amnesty International report, ridiculous or not, is expected and fifth page news at the Cape Times here in SA. The report shocks only us Americans. It’s a God-awful political point that damages Amnesty’s credibility, but it’s been well-recieved the world ’round. That’s the kind of atmosphere that exists here and elsewhere. Just FYI.
Comment by Jonathan Stroud — 6/1/2005 @ 1:17 pm
Piling on Amnesty Our patron saint Roger L. Simon and Austin Bay have formed a devastating tag team to take down Amnesty International’s morally blind report. This was largely what motivated the Posse to suggest that we simply shoot all the prisoners. After
Trackback by Posse Incitatus — 6/1/2005 @ 2:03 pm
Austin Bay shows how it’s done I mentioned earlier that the debate over mistreatment of prisoners would be “a real test for the blog culture.” (apologies to all who saw it for the earlier mangling of that post.) Austin Bay (Tip to Instapundit) has provided a
Trackback by The Radical Centrist — 6/1/2005 @ 2:33 pm
Descent of Amnesty International Amnesty International used to be an organization that stood as the (sometimes solitary) voice against oppression, real oppression, real torture, real crimes against humanity.
Trackback by Dadmanly — 6/1/2005 @ 2:37 pm
The mindset of Amnesty, the other NGOs, Leftists, and folks aligned with them is in it’s own way fairly religious. As a matter of faith principles such as rejection of military force in all cases, negotiations, “engagement,” and other principles of elite multicultural, multinational Globalists lead them to reject utterly anything which contradicts their faith. Much like the Church rejected Gallileo (”and yet it moves”). Ironically the Amnesty folks are as much Globalists as the Free Traders. Bush rejected the faith of the UN, negotiations, the “futility of military force” and all the other articles of faith, for that he gets the treatment of the apostate. It’s not any different from Iran’s treatment of Rushdie. This is why Sudan’s Genocide in Darfur, Castro imprisoning poets and Librarians, or Iran’s hanging 16 year old or 13 year old girls for the crime of being raped is no reason to comment. These things are accepted, because White Western Christians are not doing them. Therefore, they can’t truly be evil, and the various methods (negotiations, “engagement,” and of course money from Westerners to stop these things) are the only things that work. That’s Faith. A beautiful thing sometimes, other times pretty ugly. As of now the blind faith Amnesty takes in it’s worldview makes it about as credible as the Church was a hundred years after Gallileo’s trial. That America is hated around the world is part of this blind, unquestioning Faith. America’s response to 9/11, unilateral military action, threatens the pacifist world view by exposing that yes, there are real military threats (asymmetric but still there) and military force is useful in opposing them. Plus, America’s real strength (ability to get rid of Saddam and the Taliban BOTH which were 6,000 miles away) and the rest of the world’s real weakness were shown up. Nobody likes being seen as a failure. Of course, there’s also the cheap anti-Western rhetoric of which America being the leading Western nation gets the most. See: George Galloway urging Leftists to unite behind Jihad to kill Americans.
Comment by Jim Rockford — 6/1/2005 @ 2:45 pm
THE GITMO ROUND-UP As I mentioned yesterday, my column today responds to the chicken little hyperbole regarding Guantanamo Bay. Have there been abuses? Yes. Is it the “anti-Statue of Liberty?” Get a grip. Despite the MSM’s allergic reaction, White House spokesman Scot…
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 6/1/2005 @ 3:35 pm
Thank you, Amnesty International, for discrediting yourself so completely. Anyone who equates Guantanamo Bay with Soviet Gulags lacks the judgement to be taken seriously.
Comment by Fenrisulven — 6/1/2005 @ 3:50 pm
Austin, Intersection of Roger’s and your comments section: not only are today’s body politic psychologically dysfunctional (can’t root for their own side) but they are also culturally illiterate. How many of today’s youth have read the Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn, hmm? (or for that matter, members of the left who’d prefer to adore the former USSR and hate Reagan). That such a book was in my school library when I was a junior high-schooler is evidence that we have no gulags in our society, but we still have enemies. Imagine that! People around the world still want us dead, and we don’t simply execute them, we give them special meals, sacred hate texts to study and prayer rugs upon which to solicit Baal, or Gog (or is it Magog?) to help them out of their poor life choices. Man, we really suck.
Comment by Derek — 6/1/2005 @ 4:51 pm
Jonathan Stroud, You think S. Africa and ‘other third-party foreign countries’ don’t have a dog in the Fundamentalist Islam vs. USA fight? I don’t think you have been paying attention!
Comment by Paul — 6/1/2005 @ 5:07 pm
Jonathan Stroud, What should America do about other nations hating us? Should we give away more money and aid? Should it be given with no strings attached? Or maybe you think we should allow our people to be killed indiscriminatly for simply being U.S. citizens? Well let me say something to those who hate us so. All nations have a “street opinion” and that includes the U.S. How far do they think we can be pushed before the American “street” becomes enraged? America has always been slow to anger, but once angry will deliver unimaginable retribution. I can speak only for myself when I say I’m not far from that rage now. I don’t want people hating my nation, but there are other concerns I find far more important. Maybe the solution to their hatred is to give them a real reason to hate us.
Comment by G. Hamid — 6/1/2005 @ 5:52 pm
You must remember that William Shultz is a (not so) stealth agent for the anti-Bush forces from the far left–i.e. he comes to AI directly from Norman Lear’s People for the American Way. Norman planted him–thanks to significant contributions (via All in the Family residuals)–at AI to increase his personal control of the meme machine aligned against Bush. One despairing note on the power and legitimacy of AI: my grammar school children were directed by their teachers to write letters and essays in support of AI as part of their assignments in social studies a couple years back. While most–drone-like–emulated their teachers agenda, my children balked at the lock-step leftism and googled AI’s hypocrisy. My daughter did her research and ended up writing a paper on AI as shameless apologists for Castro’s regime and the ‘human rights’ organization’s fascistic support for the jailing, persecution and exile of gays and AIDs victims to Cuban gulags. Expect more anti-Bush reports and equivalence analogies of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib to German and Soviet death camps…it’s the least Norman can do to convince Americans that the creator of ‘Good Times’ is really a socio-political genius. (posted simultaneously at rogerlsimon.)
Comment by JRK — 6/1/2005 @ 6:34 pm
AN EXPERIMENT FOR AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL Before anything, read Austin Bay’s fabulous piece fisking Amnesty International on their bizarre claim that Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are modern day gulags, and that the U.S. is the leader in human rights abuses in the world. Hahahahahaha. Right. Any…
Trackback by Publius Pundit — 6/1/2005 @ 6:53 pm
Jonathan Stroud I think provides a good perspective. As I read a lot of foreign press, AI’s blather was just more of the same value-free noise from the left, unique only as an example of one-upsmanship bush bashing. AI’s insipid position is all about fund raising. Call it a form of ideological prostitution. AI provides the fantasy, patrons pay. Because those who support AI with the big checks believe such such things about America and want their beliefs validated. And they are willing to buy that ‘validation’ from the likes of AI. In my opinion, the left is going to be piling on from here on out until they are rendered moot to current and future history. They are hurt, afraid, and feel powerless. Even the monied elite amongst them are in dire fear that their hollow core has been exposed and the thin shell around it is collapsing. They are feeling themselves inexorably slipping into irrelevance. And that is the narcissists worst fear. Be that as it may, I too am getting sick and tired of it all. The way I see it is if you think America is bad now, just wait. For as the head-in-the-sand anti-Americanists continue pummeling the US, the empowerment such efforts provide our enemies will probably result in another major success for our foes - and many, many Americans will die. Left, right, middle, doesn’t matter, they will die. God forbid that should happen, but if it does and if I have anything to say about it, all of our enemies, foreign and domestic, will suffer the rath of America as none before.
Comment by F15C — 6/1/2005 @ 7:33 pm
Quote of the Day ‘I still belong to Amnesty because of what the organization does for forgotten political prisoners in many of the world’s hard corners. They are welcome to investigate US criminal behavior– as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, Americans make mistakes and c…
Trackback by Alarming News — 6/1/2005 @ 8:04 pm
America is Great because we try to be Good — but we’re not now, nor ever will be, perfect. Unreal Perfection is the unspoken, stupid standard that Amnesty has for America — because the USA is, by most measures, the most important country in the world. And the top dog gets the most attention, especially to any flaws, especially if it’s claiming moral superiority. America HAS moral superiority — and that’s why so many other countries, filled with patriotic citizens who love THEIR countries, want America to be not so good. But not really — so many of them still want to come to America, or send their kids to America. In many ways hating America is mere envy, that one’s country is not as great as America. In the deserved pile on of Amnesty, it should stressed that no country actively fighting terrorists is really doing much better. The UN with its Congo girl-rapists? France with it’s Ivory Coast civilian killers? Maybe the UK is as good (bad to Leftists) as the US; not perfect. Amnesty should have a Worst 10 list, or Worst 20/ 50 — like Freedom House has rankings of Freedom. If Amnesty ranked the US out of the worst 10, it would be uswful.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 6/1/2005 @ 8:05 pm
Immoral Cowardice Roger Simon has posted What Happened to Amnesty, with a link to Austin Bay’s
Trackback by ShrinkWrapped — 6/1/2005 @ 8:41 pm
Jonathan Stroud is right in defining the differing perspectives the world has of what the US does. Living in new Zealand, it’s hard not to miss things like R. Fisk taking up pages of our capital’s newspapers. Generally, I put it down to a lack of investigative or capable journalists. And the fact that we rely on AP and others. Nobody gives a toss that the sources are tainted or have their own agenda. But here’s the point - you need to get some international spokesman out there. Someone needs to be fronting up to the world and seriously explaining what the goals of liberty and sacrifice are. We in the western world have grown fat and lazy, morally. Maybe it’s because trade is so important, or maybe we’ve finally gotten so conflict averse that a jsut peace is nothing we understand. Get Brad Pit or suchlike to tell the world your message and you’d be ahead in the polls within a year. Instead, we hear all about the US via George Lucas, MM and other such enlightened fools. And people listen to them. I’ll never forget sitting with young IDF conscripts, all young girls, and telling them that as much as I appreciate their self determination and guts to stand proud, they better realise the world media and opinion counts. They didn’t believe me. Then the second intifada started a few years later and I really, really wish the IDF spokesman unit and foreign affairs team had listened. I hope the the US doesn’t go down the same path. All power to you!
Comment by kiwi_b — 6/1/2005 @ 8:45 pm
Is there really anything wrong at Gitmo ? Much of the news today involves Amnesty International calling the American detention facility in Cuba the new Gulag. I guess in order to do so, they must skip over the true Gulag inside Castro’s portion but that is for another…
Trackback by Rod's Ramblings — 6/1/2005 @ 11:14 pm
Austin Bay shows how it’s done I mentioned earlier that the debate over mistreatment of prisoners would be “a real test for the blog culture.” (apologies to all who saw it for the earlier mangling of that post.) Austin Bay (Tip to Instapundit) has provided a
Trackback by The Radical Centrist — 6/2/2005 @ 12:03 am
Amnesty has been sinking for some time now, but this “Gulag” comment represents a new and dangerous low. It’s actually no surprise that they would make the Soviet Gulag comparison, however–it’s not mere hyperbole, but has a strategic dimension as well. Here is my take on the matter.
Comment by neo-neocon — 6/2/2005 @ 12:07 am
Jim Rockford - America’s response to 9/11, unilateral military action, threatens the pacifist world view by exposing that yes, there are real military threats (asymmetric but still there) and military force is useful in opposing them. Oi! Australia here! Not unilaterial! We know, we were there! Mind you, we don’t hate America. Well, some Australians do; we have about the same proportion of moonbats as you do, sadly.
Comment by Pixy Misa — 6/2/2005 @ 12:11 am
I have seen all this before. 1970 redux. Isn’t it interesting that, now that the corner is turned in Iraq and there is likelihood that self-government will succeed there, all hell is suddenly breaking loose over “American atrocities†in the war. The same poisonous drum-beat as before. The same sweeping generalizations from graphic, if limited, real cases. It is the emergence of all this firestorm all at once, and the excessive, disproportionate, repetitive and interlocking exposure it is all given, that is the tip-off. Allegations reported as facts. Single incidents repeated over and over as if new. Reports originating in the enemy camp reported unquestioningly as factual. Isolated incidents generalized to the entire chain of command and beyond, to attribution to the essential nature of the entire nation. The presumption that everything asserted by the government is false. All the same as before. Terror war is almost entirely psychological war, as the name implies. There is no way the enemy can win, unless they can demoralize our own people here at home, and delegitimize the forces that constitute military action.. Same as before. The alliance of the Left and the Islamofascists is sickening and unbelievable, but it has to be recognized for what it is. It is not anti-Bush, or even partisan. It is ideologically anti-American, and it is very, very serious, and very, very dangerous. Our military enemies have no mass media of their own with penetration in this country to accomplish their ultimate goal. They have to rely on their allies to be their megaphone, and that is exactly what they are, explicit allies in a war against the United States. Amnesty International is, or has become, part of the co-opted anti-Americanism that is bent on the destruction of this country. It has to be opposed every bit as strenuously as the military threat – because it is even more dangerous to our success, if not our very survival.
Comment by John Boyle — 6/2/2005 @ 1:26 am
Amnesty Irresponsible I was a member of Amnesty International USA for at least 20 years. As a libertarian, I gladly supported an organization that fought human rights abuses worldwide and helped free political prisoners. I never shared the group’s enthusiasm for the UN’s
Trackback by rgcombs.blog-city.com — 6/2/2005 @ 5:51 am
America, Tsk Tsk Along with the UN, Amnesty International is just another organization that spends most of its time attacking the policies of the US while ignoring those of other countries. From Mitch Albom’s Sunday column: In fact, when you pull up Amnesty…
Trackback by The Loudest Cricket — 6/2/2005 @ 7:49 am
Hi Austin - I have nothing more to add to what has already been said but I thought I would point out an error in regards to the Bhudda site in Afghanistan. If I remember correctly from my art history classes, the site you referred to is Bamiyan, not Bubiyan. Otherwise - keep it coming!
Comment by Dan — 6/2/2005 @ 8:09 am
Promemoria per Amnes(t)y Anche la blogsfera si scatena. Ecco un breve roundup italo-americano. The Java Report su cosa furono i veri gulag. E poi RogerLSimon, Michelle Malkin, Babalu, AustinBay, Villainous Company, ScaredMonkeys.
Trackback by KrilliX — 6/2/2005 @ 9:44 am
SouthernBoy, while I have limited sympathy for al-Qaeda terrorists, I do not think comments like yours do anything but provide fodder for those who defend Amnesty International’s inexcusable comparison. Would I have a problem with using moderate physical pressure on a suspected terrorist to get information that could prevent an attack? No. Do I think we should round folks up as you advocated, and torture them for no reason other than they might be Arab? No. I do find it interesting… most of the time, folks like you tend to be more sympathetic towards the likes of al-Qaeds, as the Washington Post reported in 2002: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64385-2002Apr28¬Found=true
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 6/2/2005 @ 10:18 am
Is It Real OR Is It Just Partisan Politics? The Washington Times reports: The top leadership of Amnesty International USA, which unleashed a blistering attack last week on the Bush administration’s handling of war detainees, contributed the maximum $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry’s presidential camp…
Trackback by Anchor Rising — 6/2/2005 @ 10:24 am
Number one, I voted for the President in the last election. Number two, what I’ve done on that front is no business of yours, and I wonder if you would be willing to sign a Form 180, so I can verify your claim. Number three, I find it quite interesting you labeled me a terrorist-lover for disagreeing with your position on this matter. Never mind that I supported the use of moderate physical pressure on terrorists to prevent attacks as the Israelis have used (I should clarify and point out that it would be in a “ticking bomb” scenario), you seem all too eager to call for an investigation of me.
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 6/2/2005 @ 11:20 am
At its best, Amnesty International is an outstanding organization - shedding light and publicity on prisoners most of the world would rather forget. That is a vital service, and all who love freedom need to know and hear it. However, at its worst, Amnesty is dangerous and irresponsible. There is no such thing as moral equivalency in the world - none. To say that Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are modern gulags is to misinterpret grievously the purposes of each. Stalin sought to silence political enemies and gain slave labor while maintaining an iron grip of fear on the people. The purpose of detaining armed combatants is just a tad different - keeping the combatants out of the war while the war is being prosecuted. Of course, abuses can - and do - occur, this is a human endeavor after all. But, unlike Stalin’s gulags, abuse is not the order of the day at Gitmo.
Comment by Kerry Westerwick — 6/2/2005 @ 11:36 am
All, the offensive comments attributed to Mr. Hutchison are NOT his; he’s way more literate than that.
Comment by Ken Prescott — 6/2/2005 @ 11:45 am
DavisIII: Someone is forging some posts under my name. The only ones other than this one I have made are 14, 19, 53, 59, and 60. The others lower down have been posted under my name. I don’t know who is doing this, but there is a distinct difference between the posts I am posting.
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 6/2/2005 @ 11:45 am
Find a copy of the 1/24/2004 New Yorker and read the article “Victims and Volunteers” by Ian Parker. Ti’s the story of Barbara Bocek, an Amnesty country specialist that faked her own kidnapping(s) and soaked Amnesty for all sorts of expenses. It shows how screwed up Amnesty is internally.
Comment by John W — 6/2/2005 @ 12:36 pm
Media Bias? US Leads Human Rights Violations (News Stories) On the heels of the Amnesty International comic book released recently (masterfully fisked by Austin Bay), Publius Pundit ran an interesting test searching Google News for “Human Rights Abuses xxxâ€, where “xxx†represents various countries. Sur…
Trackback by The Word Unheard — 6/2/2005 @ 2:38 pm
Amnesty and That Gulag Comment. I’m not really sure what’s going on here. No, not in the larger picture, but with me. Have I missed something? I mean I do understand what the fuss is about, comparing the current US actions at Guantanamo to the
Trackback by Tim Worstall — 6/3/2005 @ 10:03 am
G Hamid wrote: “I don’t want people hating my nation, but there are other concerns I find far more important. Maybe the solution to their hatred is to give them a real reason to hate us.” No, having a real reason to hate us ( or more properly the US ) is not going to help the situation. Nor will it change the situation, they hate us already anyway. What worries me is that if rage guides our actions we will give the world a real reason to Fear us. Afterwards, perhaps years afterwards, when our anger has cooled, our own feelings of guilt will bind our hands while our enemies take advantage of our shame to do us real damage. Resepctfully
Comment by Ron — 6/5/2005 @ 8:20 am
[…] rical blindness. The false frame of moral equivalency compounds their mistake. [Austin Bay Fisking Amnesty, Persevering After Moral Compromise 05jn01] see also David B. Rivkin Jr. & Lee A […]
Pingback by Whispers in the airstreams » Amnesty International reveals true color — 6/8/2005 @ 4:25 pm
#61 They are already using our freedom and our system to destroy us. Solutions?
Comment by zipity — 6/9/2005 @ 10:20 pm
Hello, you have great site!
Comment by Walter — 10/5/2006 @ 2:49 am
[…] en Instapundit este comentario sobre el informe de Amnesty International que compara al centro de detención de Guantánamo con un […]
Pingback by Derechos Humanos | Noticias — 4/21/2009 @ 6:02 am