Amnesty Part IV

Sorry for the month-long hiatus.  It was necessary.  In the meantime my volleyball team won 3rd out of 43 in Dallas over the Memorial Day weekend. 

While the Amnesty International discussions below have not been very fruitful, and I'm loathe to reopen them, a perfect example of what I have previously argued as their lack of priorities has come to light.  Via Captain's Quarters I find this Annual Report from AI USA's Executive Director. 

The refusal of the US government to conduct a truly independent investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and other detention centers is tantamount to a whitewash, if not a cover-up, of these disgraceful crimes. It is a failure of leadership to prosecute only enlisted soldiers and a few officers while protecting those who designed a deliberate government policy of torture and authorized interrogation techniques that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The government’s investigation must climb all the way to the top of the military and civilian chain of command.

If the US government continues to shirk its responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior US officials involved in the torture scandal. And if those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them. The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest as Augusto Pinochet famously did in London in 1998.

Now I have gone on record as being strongly against both extraordinary rendition and US implementation of torture.  However, the request to have American officials arrested overseas betrays a huge lack of priorities. 

I have searched the press releases for Cuba (see here) and Zimbabwe (see here) to see if I could find a similar requests that foreign governments arrest those who AI believes violates human rights standards, and I was unable to come up with anything.  (I engaged in a number of word searches which I think should have captured any such statement and ended up reading dozens of releases and reports if my methodology ends up having missed a key report I apologize in advance, please feel free to look--that is why I am providing the links).  Whatever one thinks about rendition or US instances of torture, they are like a candle to the sun when compared with Castro's decades-enduring political prisoner camps for reporters, playwrights and artists or Mugabe's attempts to literally starve his opposition to death.  (I excuse AI from making such demands about North Korea since its leader does not travel).  Both Castro and Mugabe have travelled to Europe but neither has been subjected to arrest, and so far as I can tell AI has not suggested that they should be. 

Asking for foreign arrest is one of the most extreme things that AI asks for.  It does not ask for military intervention to stop abuses (see Iraq or the Sudan) and it has qualms about sanctions which might hit the general population more than the offending party (which is to say almost all sanctions).  Why would AI reserve its strongest requests for international action for US abuses while failing to do so for far worse abuses such as those of Castro or Mugabe? 

Comments

[Barry]

Sulla: "most people have little sympathy for anybody who’s fellow travelers kidnap civilians and saw their heads off for the evening news."

Jesurgislac:
"And part of the problem is that no one has properly explained to the majority of Americans (certainly Bush & Co have either lied about it or ignored it, when speaking about Guantanamo Bay) that there has been no procedure to discover if prisoners sent to Guantanamo Bay, or indeed any other part of the American gulag archipelago, are in fact in any way connected with the vile people who kidnap civilians and saw their heads off for the evening news.

Further, American soldiers have kidnapped civilians, Sulla, and have tortured them to death. That they do not do so "for the evening news" does not make their crime less vile: it merely makes it less public."

Tt's probably true that most Americans don't know what's really going on, and to assign blame. The blame goes to the administration, the media, and those who voted for the administration.

Now, those who read blogs, not naming names here, but those who read blogs, have absolutely no excuse for not knowing what's going on. That makes their arguments along the nature of 'the prisoners are all evil terrorists' rather dishonest.

No naming names, of course. Just saying.

[Sulla]

Jes,
I was just offering my 2 cents on the best way for people who see the holding of the detainees as a grave injustice to gain political support. I think highlighting the mistreatment of innocent people is a superior tactic than defending Amnesty’s hyperbole, but whatever.

“it merely makes it less public“
Well yes, that was part of my point.

[Jonas Cord]

Sidereal,

Dr. King was no stranger to metaphor and strong rhetoric. What would you think, 42 years ago, about anyone who responded to the rhetoric of Dr. King's eulogy with 'OMG, he's too confrontational! or 'Hey, it's a eulogy, it's not appropriate to talk about politics!'. You'd think they were an ass, that's what you'd think. Because you would know that the cause is just, and that's what matters, and that's what will decide whether you win people to your cause or not.

To say King's rhetoric is analogous to the slop coming out of Amnesty is pretty asinine and mildly offensive. You do not just get to say anything you'd like to make a strong point about a just cause. I can't think of an instance where King ever did that.

[Sulla]

Sidereal,
Unless there is an agreed on definition of what’s noble lifting people’s eyes is fancy language for the dirty business of politics and if you engage in politics you will be spit on.

[2shoes]

You do not just get to say anything you'd like to make a strong point about a just cause.

Like there's an Axis of Evil?

Honestly, what the ????

You don't get to say anything slanderous. Otherwise, you can phrase things anyway you like.

[Jonas Cord]

You don't get to say anything slanderous. Otherwise, you can phrase things anyway you like.

Sounds about right to me, 2shoes. I'll be ducking out due to the unreasonable sloppiness of my writing today.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Oh my gawd! I just realized that the commenter I'd most want on my side in a political fight is Sulla.

We're so screwed.

[CharleyCarp]

Sulla, I agree that most Americans are unconcerned about the plight of the prisoners in Guantanamo. There are a number of causes for this, but prominent among them is that the Administration is staffed by moral midgets. Even worse, moral midgets with something to hide.

Of course it makes sense that the public discourse ought to be heavy on stories of people for whom there is no basis for detention. The thing is, the details are all classified. Only little bits are available, and the government, which controls all the information, is not doing much to highlight its mistakes.

Let me write this hypothetically. Suppose a client told me a tale involving another prisoner that would be newsworthy, but asked me not to do anything with it until I hear from the other guy, lest my guy face retaliation. Suppose that even if he changes his mind, the story is classified -- as is anything that any prisoner says -- and will not be declassified without certain paperwork from the second prisoner. Suppose further that the government controls the mail, and can prevent the second guy from sending me a letter. Ever. It will prevent me from sending a letter. Ever. Catch 22, right? So you can go ahead and have whatever opinions you want about what is happening in the prisons, and who is there, because information to the contrary is actively suppressed. This is, though, the opposite of the transparent democracy we inherited, and of which we are supposed to be the stewards.

And yet people spend their time complaining about AI.

[dmbeaster]

Sebastian:

... perhaps I finally understand why it must criticize the US so loudly. AI is philosophically against actions which are necessary to stop very serious human rights abuses.

Perhaps I finally understand why Sebastian (or Charles, et al.) must criticize AI so loudly. They are philosophically against actions which are necessary to stop very serious human rights abuses by the Bush administration.

[Jesurgislac]

Jonas: I think highlighting the mistreatment of innocent people is a superior tactic than defending Amnesty’s hyperbole, but whatever.

And I think that highlighting the mistreatment of innocent people is a superior tactic to complaining about Amnesty’s choice of words to talk about it. But if you think it's better to complain about Amnesty, well, what can I say?

[Jesurgislac]

Ooops - the last comment should have been directed at Sulla. Sorry.

Jonas: To say King's rhetoric is analogous to the slop coming out of Amnesty is pretty asinine and mildly offensive.

To say that Amnesty International's rhetoric about the US's human rights abuses is "slop" is pretty asinine and mildly offensive.

[Sulla]

CharleyCarp,
I believe we’ve flown back dozens if not hundreds from Guantanamo Bay, these are the people I had in mind. Maybe it wouldn’t work but I don’t see defending Amnesty’s little publicity stunt as a way to sway the semi-informed American. The informed ones are already committed one way or another and of course there is no use in trying to reach the uninformed.

SCMT- heh, you’re just beginning to find out how bad.

[Sulla]

Jes,
My complaint about Amnesty is the only dog I have in the fight. I loose no sleep over the detainees, the horror, the horror.

[Slartibartfast]

They are philosophically against actions which are necessary to stop very serious human rights abuses by the Bush administration.

Uh...I'm not sure if this is what you meant to say, so...is it, and if so, what do you mean by this?

[sidereal]

JC:
"I'll be ducking out"

Have a good one.

We can catch up later on whether King's suggestion that the Birmingham church fire was 'one of the most vicious and tragic crimes ever perpetrated against humanity' was hyperbolic or not, and whether the difference between rhetoric and slop is based on preconceived notions or content.

"Sidereal,
Unless there is an agreed on definition of what’s noble"

How many people would disagree that keeping innocent people out of incarceration, due process, and humane treatment are noble? You're wrong about why people don't care. It's not because most Americans are heartless. It's because they don't know or don't want to know, so they don't have to deal with it.

"lifting people’s eyes is fancy language for the dirty business of politics"

Please. Due process isn't 'politics'. It is one of the greatest travesties of the modern political climate that every criticism is cast as 'politics' so that it can be discounted. Reality isn't about politics.

"and if you engage in politics you will be spit on."

Oh, and nice jump to the passive tense.

[Jesurgislac]

Sulla: I lose no sleep over the detainees, the horror, the horror.

If you have no objection to the US kidnapping, imprisoning, torturing, and killing innocent people, I can see why you would find Amnesty International merely one more thing to complain about.

[CharleyCarp]

Sulla, I don't think anyone is affirmatively going out of their way to defend AI. All the AI discussions I ever see are responses to conservative's continuing attempts to talk about AI as a diversion. No one making some kind of strategic decision, it's all reactive.

In that light, there's a choice: sit quietly, and be taken as agreeing, or change the subject to something else. Threaded discussion, of course, biases strongly towards the former, inasmuch as people who are sitting quietly are, well, quiet. I haven't spoken with anyone who has been released, but can imagine a number of reasons why they would not want to be part of any political campaign. From fear of recapture or discipline from their home governments, to unwillingness to have anything more to do with the West, to lying low until their civil suits go to trial. A great many have given media statements, but these are simply dismissed by people who are more invested in supporting a point of view than in acknowledging what is going on.

I accept your challenge though. In return, I challenge you to focus, when justifying the thing in any way (including that it is not a 'gulag,'*) on those "guests" at Guantanamo who have been convicted of terrorism related crimes after a trial that meets minimal due process (notice, opportunity to be heard, confrontation, accepted rules of evidence).

* I would not and do not use the word.

[otto]

Felixrayman,

I apologize if it seemed that I was being at all discourteous upthread. Such was not my feeling toward you.

Do you know the scene in the movie version of “Catch-22” when Art Garfunkel’s character has the dialogue with the old Italian man, and he’s frustrated with what he sees as the old man’s moral ambiguity? Finally, in exasperation, he asks, “Don’t you have any principles?” To which the old man scoffs, “Certainly not!” Show me someone who lacks moral certainty, and I’ll show you someone who isn’t committing any “crimes,” as you call them, nor doing any “good.” :)

[freelunch]

I loose no sleep over the detainees, the horror, the horror.

Neither does the Bush Administration. That is why I object to their criminal behavior.

I'm very sorry that you don't actually care what happens to people who have been kidnapped and held without a hearing or access to counsel by the government of the United States. I do care what happens. It is wrong. It is against the laws of the United States and international law. I don't even want it to happen to you.

[st]

But Garfunkel's character in that movie (and the book) is a naive chump. Moral certainty is for fanatics, and hoping for certainty is the same thing as wishing you were more credulous.

That doesn't mean I don't act in my community, or donate to causes; I just don't need anything approaching "certainty" to make me do it. I don't mean to attack you, otto - I have a hunch my disagreement with you is more semantic than anything else.

[Anarch]

Before I forget:

Sebastian: Sorry for the month-long hiatus. It was necessary. In the meantime my volleyball team won 3rd out of 43 in Dallas over the Memorial Day weekend.

Welcome back, and congratulations! If any of your games are ever televised, you have to let us know :)

Now, to the topic at-hand. Most of this is, well, not exactly the kind of material I want to wade into, but there is one thing...

Sulla: I loose no sleep over the detainees, the horror, the horror.

I'll bite: why not?

[Sulla]

Sidereal,
The law and enforcement of the law are drenched in politics. If you don’t see it that way we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Jes,
I’m sure there are innocent detainees but bad things sometimes happen to good people. I wish it weren’t the case.

CharleyCarp,
The problem with your challenge is I doubt there is enough evidence to convict many of the detainees in anything but a show trial but I sure that for a few of them (and it could just be a few) it isn’t in our best interests to let them go.

Freelunch and Anarch,
The question as I see it is- upon release or acquittal are we sure none of the detainees will turn around and commit terrorist acts against us? Of course there is no way to answer this because it is so loaded. I doubt any politician would care to take it on either and so we're stuck. I'm not happy with the situation but neither am I happy with the idea of putting these guys into the regular justice system because I doubt we have enough on most them them to get a conviction.

[Anarch]

I'm not happy with the situation but neither am I happy with the idea of putting these guys into the regular justice system because I doubt we have enough on most them them to get a conviction.

So let me see if I'm getting this straight: We have a lot of people locked up in Gitmo, etc. because

• ...there exists a chance that one of them will commit a terrorist act against the United States
• ...this risk is (politically) unacceptable, so they are being detained en masse without benefit of charge or trial
• ...but we don't actually have enough evidence to convict any of them for something (terrorism? conspiracy to commit terrorism? I don't know exactly what) in the proper legal system
• ...yet although you're "not happy" at this state of affairs, you're nevertheless not losing any sleep over their fate.

If that's an accurate summation of your views, I have a secondary question: what makes you think that the detainees in Gitmo are guilty (or going to be guilty) of conspiracy to commit terrorism? For those who are not, what do you think gives the United States government -- and more specifically, the Executive Branch -- the unabridged right to hold them indefinitely at Gitmo etc. without benefit of charge or trial?

[Jesurgislac]

I was going to respond to Sulla, but Anarch has said everything I would want to say, and somewhat better, so I'll just say: Seconded.

[freelunch]

The question as I see it is- upon release or acquittal are we sure none of the detainees will turn around and commit terrorist acts against us?

I cannot figure out how to distinguish this argument from an argument for totalitarianism or an argument against the rule of law.

[KCinDC]

You all now think the aggressive, intellectually dishonest demagoguery is what wins the day. It's not. Those who have done that kept their opponents - both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush - in the White House.

Yes, it's a good thing for the Bush campaign that it stayed away from aggressive, intellectually dishonest demagoguery.

[KCinDC]

Sulla, how can I be sure you're not going to commit a terrorist act? Better ship you off to Gitmo and torture you a bit to be sure.

[Sulla]

Anarch,
From what I understand the detainees were picked up during our Afghanistan campaign. Some were actively fighting for the Taliban while others were fingered by persons with axes to grind. The military is left to figure out who, if any, poses a danger to the U.S. I don’t think this gives the executive branch a right to indefinitely hold them but on the one hand it doesn’t concern me because I’d rather be safe than sorry on the other hand I brought up using the innocent people that have been there as a PR tactic because that does bother me. What's the answer? I don't have one.

freelunch,
Oh it’s definitely prototalitarianism. I’m a conservative after all.

[Sulla]

KcinDC
If you ever catch me shooting at U.S troops in Afghanistan (where the were terrorist training camps for years) feel free to ship me where ever. This whole problem could have been avoided with a take no prisoners attitude.

[Anderson]

This whole problem could have been avoided with a take no prisoners attitude.

Proscriptions, Sulla?

[Jesurgislac]

Sulla: From what I understand the detainees were picked up during our Afghanistan campaign.

No, that's not so. Some of the prisoners were sold or given to the US military in Afghanistan (the "Afghanistan" campaign still continues). Many others were not. If you want to inform yourself more about the origins of the prisoners, check out this website. Guantanamo Bay holds people taken by the US from the Gambia, from Bosnia, from Spain - quite literally from across the world.

[Anderson]

The question as I see it is- upon release or acquittal are we sure none of the detainees will turn around and commit terrorist acts against us?

As I pointed out somewhere, one Gitmo guard's comment on the prisoners was "they may not have been terrorists before, but they are now."

So, having done our best to convert these guys to al-Qaeda, we should now lock them up forever so that they won't hurt us?

Miss Jones, get that Kafka character on the line--we need a screenplay, pronto!

[Jesurgislac]

Sulla: This whole problem could have been avoided with a take no prisoners attitude.

You're right. Well, you're half right. A large part of the problem could have been avoided if the US had had a "take no prisoners" attitude. The CagedPrisoners website seems to have gone down, again, but I was about to cite you as an example a man who is a journalist, who worked in Afghanistan, and who went home to Spain for a holiday: he was taken prisoner in Grenada and sent to Guantanamo Bay. If you go on holiday in Spain, Sulla, do you feel that this means you deserve to be taken to Guantanamo Bay?

[freelunch]

Sulla,

I remember when conservatives hated totalitarianism.

[Sulla]

Jes,
Very well.

Anderson,
Mock my position all you want. I consider it a type of community service for libs to tut-tut me in an effort to feel superior. I make no bones about there being conflicts within my position on the matter and never claimed it was the most tightly wound philosophical position. However, I do believe I’m in line with the majority of public opinion on this (for once).

ObWi community adieu- I make it a habit not to touch a computer on the weekends. We can continue the fun on Monday if you like.

[double-plus-ungood]

Sulla: However, I do believe I’m in line with the majority of public opinion on this (for once).

And this is how freedom dies.

[Jesurgislac]

Sulla: I make it a habit not to touch a computer on the weekends.

Undoubtedly a good plan. ;-)

D-P-U-G: And this is how freedom dies.

I'm afraid so. "We arrested him. He must be guilty. If he's not, well, bad things happen to good people."

[Charles Bird]

it's telling Sebastian what to conclude about it before he's read it for himself. It's an old debate term...not an insult toward you. I thought it would make you chuckle

I was just tweaking you back, that's all. On my original comment, I thought it interesting the similarities between I and IV re Schulz.

[otto]

st,

Indeed. And no attack perceived. Semantics. I meant to approach the whole thing with humor and skepticism (of my own position as well). Weren’t you laughing at that scene in Catch-22?

[Phil]

The question as I see it is- upon release or acquittal are we sure none of the detainees will turn around and commit terrorist acts against us?

If they wouldn't have before, many of them almost certainly will now.

[von]

Some of the prisoners were sold or given to the US military in Afghanistan (the "Afghanistan" campaign still continues).

Why the "quotes" around "Afghanistan," Jes?

[Jesurgislac]

Von: Why the "quotes" around "Afghanistan," Jes?

Typo. Should have been "Afghanistan campaign" - Sulla was referring to it as if it were something long gone, whereas fighting is still going on in Afghanistan.

[von]

Should have been "Afghanistan campaign" - Sulla was referring to it as if it were something long gone, whereas fighting is still going on in Afghanistan.

Yes, OK. And I'd add that it's not at all clear that we're winning. (And, as in Iraq, I'm in favor of sending more men/women and/or money, as needed, to improve the odds.)

[DaveL]

And this is how freedom dies.

Two thoughts:

1. At this point, I'm a lot more worried about keeping the Gitmo Archipelago from growing, and about keeping the truly bat-sh*t legal analysis the Administration has offered up from getting applied in other contexts, than I am about the Gitmo Archipelago itself. It's reprehensible, but I can kind of see where Sulla is coming from if I assume that current policy is as bad as it gets. We do, after all, continue to function with a criminal justice and prison system that does bad things to good people (or at least not especially bad people) all the time.

2. As I think about the analogy between U.S. prisons and the Gitmo Archipelago, it occurs to me that I should be a whole lot more outraged about U.S. prisons than I actually am.

[double-plus-ungood]

We do, after all, continue to function with a criminal justice and prison system that does bad things to good people (or at least not especially bad people) all the time.

Every system where groups of people are under the strict authority of other groups provides the potential for abuse. That's where due process and accountability provide a checks and balance system to help prevent those abuses.

The scary thing about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib is that the public checks and balances are not only non-existant, the facilities have been set up specifically to avoid those checks and balances.

The fact that we're seeing open admission by the government that due process has being abandoned because it's inconvenient to them doing whatever they want to these people is shocking. More shocking is that there isn't public outrage at this.

I dunno, maybe I'm missing something, but it's discouraging to witness the rage at Amnesty's choice of words at describing what is possibly the first stages of the disintegration of the American concept of freedom and justice in exchange for an illusion of security and safety. Amnesty is justified in their terminology here, some bad stuff is happening, and the strong language reflects on that.

[Hal]

"This is entirely wrong, because it's impossible to separate something said from how it's said."

Boy, if that were true we'd have no common understanding across languages, styles of speech and presentation. There's such a thing as obsessive compulsive attention to protocol - Miss Manners on steroids.

Using offense at how something was conveyed as a reason to discredit the source is a tactic as old as humanity. And we have plenty of myths and stories that warn us against such obsession.

[Hal]

d-p-u But at least good manners and civil society will be upheld.

At all costs, politeness must prevail.

[DaveL]

I dunno, maybe I'm missing something, but it's discouraging to witness the rage at Amnesty's choice of words at describing what is possibly the first stages of the disintegration of the American concept of freedom and justice in exchange for an illusion of security and safety. Amnesty is justified in their terminology here, some bad stuff is happening, and the strong language reflects on that.

I phrased my last post badly, or maybe haven't thought it through fully. I'm agnostic about whether Amnesty's "gulag" reference was appropriate--I think the answer depends on whether it succeeds in getting people to look seriously at the substance of their report, and there's some indication that it's working--but I fully agree that our government's treatment of prisoners is a very serious problem and one that needs to be fixed. My point was only that there are other very serious problems that need to be fixed, such as the way we treat our domestic prisoners, that have not, thus far, proven to be the death knell of freedom in this country (although when I look at the War on Drugs I'm not entirely sure of that). Put crassly, if you expect the Gitmo Archipelago to be reserved for brown-skinned foreigners who've gotten crosswise of U.S. troops, allied security types, and the like, it's not unreasonable to see it as no more threatening to the freedom of Americans than other things that most of us don't spend a lot of time worrying about.

I'm trying to fix a garbled post with another garbled post.

Bottom line: I guess all I'm really trying to say is that if you're willing to assume, as I think Sulla is, that the Gitmo Archipelago is a one-off response to 9/11, I can understand his response, and I can understand why he would not see it as a singular outrage. I disagree with him, but I don't think he's crazy or proto-fascist or whatever.

[freelunch]

it occurs to me that I should be a whole lot more outraged about U.S. prisons than I actually am.

Yes.

The American justice system leave a lot to be desired. Many groups in America have been suffering from what appears to be an unbridled police state for decades. Being a poor, young, African-American male appears to be a crime in itself and despite clear directions from the Supreme Court, our society refuses to pay enough to provide a proper defense to each of these poor accused. If you are poor, you may have the right to counsel, but you have to share it with every other accused.

[DaveL]

Not to mention what happens in the prisons themselves. It's pretty scary to think about the implications of the fact that Charles Graner, and IIRC some of the others implicated in abuse of detainees, are prison guards in civilian life.

[Gary Farber]

"(And, as in Iraq, I'm in favor of sending more men/women and/or money, as needed, to improve the odds.)"

This begs the question that either more U.S. personnel or money is, in fact, what's needed. It's a fairly questionable, if not possibly dangerous, assumption.

[Yama001]

I believe many of these folks cannot be successfully prosecuted because the evidence has been obtained through torture or other dubious methods. Even legal but harsh interrogations would likely run a foul of evidence rules, etc.

Surely some of the urgency to keep their fate indefinate lies in the need to dodge an accounting. This has worked splendidly so far. I suppose its worth noting that many have been released, I assume these were the safest (politically as well as militarily) to free. No doubt the rest can be stonewalled through another election or two ...

(some of those are likely safest at Gitmo, given the gentle mercies of their home countries - no excuse for skipping a proper accounting, though).

[Gary Farber]

"...it occurs to me that I should be a whole lot more outraged about U.S. prisons than I actually am."

It never hurts. Most people don't give a damn, since, after all, only bad people wind up in prison. (Epiphanies seem common once one spends a single night in jail, or a relative or loved one does.) (No, I've never even been arrested, myself.)

[Gary Farber]

"This is entirely wrong, because it's impossible to separate something said from how it's said."

Boy, if that were true we'd have no common understanding across languages, styles of speech and presentation.

Okay. Rewrite your post explaining this, but this time don't use words. Demonstrate how you can, indeed, separate out the meaning, and communicate it, in writing, without those pesky misleading words.

[Hal]

Um, that seems to be completely missing the point, Gary. Certainly, one can convey meaning without words. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm simply saying that arguing about whether something is said rudely and using that as a means to discredit the message that was said rudely is a sign that form is being placed over substance. Protocol over message.

There are those that care about what was said and there are those that care about how it was said. And this can lead to amazing aberrations. For example, posts about a venerable institution which has done more for the cause of freedom in one day than probably all of us involved in these comments and posts have done in the integrated sum of our lives. Yet this can all be dashed because this organization has chosen to frame their message in a manner which the target takes as offensive.

This is clearly worrying far more about the form than the substance. And the reason why is quite clear.

[Gary Farber]

"Certainly, one can convey meaning without words."

Not in writing, which is all I'm, of course, talking about: no.

"I'm simply saying that arguing about whether something is said rudely and using that as a means to discredit the message that was said rudely is a sign that form is being placed over substance."

Arguably so, but you seem to be discussing some other topic than what I wrote, or arguing with something someone else said. I take it you want to talk about Amnesty International, et al. That's fine. It's in the thread title, after all. Many here clearly want to (although the last time I noticed anyone here saying anything new on the topic during the month of May, myself, thus my own lack of seeing any useful point). Possibly, however, I was too subtle when I wrote "(Note: this is a general point I harp on; I remain uninterested in the apparently popular game of 'yo mamma likes AI,' 'does not!')" above. I do apologize for my apparent lack of clarity.

[Hal]

I'll be the first to admit that you can dance around a point far better than I'm able to keep up with you. Sorry for being boorish.

[Gary Farber]

I don't think you were being boorish, Hal.

I do have an extremely strong tendency, going back to at least early childhood, to take up points other than the "main" point someone is making, because that's what I happened to be interested in. I like to think that I try to be very careful -- sometimes failing abysmally, please stress the word "try" -- in making clear that I am, in fact, addressing only a sub-point or a general point or an entirely different point, than that other people are discussing, and thus I often end up becoming exasperated with other people responding as if, no matter, I was still on that other point others were talking about, just as they become exasperated with me for, they perceive, making an argument that doesn't address what they're talking about, or for various variations on this theme. Much as I'd prefer to apportion blame for this onto other people's lack of careful reading, it's clear that I bear considerable responsibility myself for this dynamic; where fault lies either overall or in specific cases is not for me to judge or say.

[Hal]

ASCII is an abysmal medium and you have a quite complicated style. I find it all too easy for me to get lost in all the elegant twists and turns and talk past the specific point in question. My apologies.

[CharleyCarp]

Sulla, I'll leave this in case you pick it back up on Monday. I don't know whether or not 'most' prisoners in Guantanamo were picked up in Afghanistan, but a great many were not. This is a fact, and all the talk on the internet about 'battlefields' is not related to the actual position of the US government: they think they can hold the little old lady from Switzerland. It is also a fact that a great many prisoners have never fired a shot in anger at anyone associated with the United States, and are being not held on suspicion of having done so. So yes, there's a huge problem with sending them to trials, as you acknowledge.

If we're going to just start rounding people up because they might be dangerous, how about all those members of militias? Members of the KKK? Anyone with a complexion darker than a grocery bag? People who apparently think that the ends of their own personal safety justify throwing away the means for acheiving a just society -- I mean, that's who's really dangerous. Gulags aren't imposed by beings from outer space. They come from people who are willing to look the other way for some kind of short term benefit.

[DaveC]

If we're going to just start rounding people up because they might be dangerous, how about all those members of militias? (Erik Rudolph, and rightly so) Members of the KKK? (Sen Byrd) Anyone with a complexion darker than a grocery bag?

They're about to throw Neil Prakash in prison? News to me.

[DaveC]

Another thing that should be considered is that the US was known as "The Great Satan" even as far back as the Jimmy Carter era.

[Gary Farber]

"Another thing that should be considered is that the US was known as 'The Great Satan' even as far back as the Jimmy Carter era."

By some Iranians. Of course, they had no reason whatever to hold a grudge against the United States. It was all just arbitrary and out of the blue. Who knows why those excitable Iranians might feel that way? It's a mystery.

[otto]

CharleyCarp,

Thanks for all your comments. Best wishes.

[Iron Lungfish]

Gary, if I might rephrase what I think was Hal's original point, while hoping to avoid further gratuitous pedantry:

If a man were sitting in a burning house, humming along with his record collection as his living room caught fire, and a housemate, in the midst of fleeing the house, ran up to him to yell, "Hey, idiot! The house is on fire!", it's possible that the man in the burning house might think to himself, "Me, an idiot? How utterly rude! I demand an apology," and return to perusing his LPs. But this person would be phenomenally stupid, because the manner in which the message was delivered (rudeness and insult) is quite easily separated from the content of the message (the house is on fire), and any reasonable person willing to receive the message would want to act on it as soon as possible, regardless of the manner in which that content was delivered (particularly as the content reveals information which would allow the hearer of the message to preserve his own life).

To say that you cannot ever divorce content from style or language from the form of its delivery is both wrong and silly. The manner of a message's delivery may make it more or less likely that a message's content will be separated from that manner, but the two are distinct and can readily be separated by anyone who is willing to do so. What an inflammatory style does is make it less likely that there are listeners willing to make that separation.

[Sulla]

“And this is how freedom dies”
d.p.u.
I can’t, and haven’t, argued that the Gitmo situation doesn’t betray some of our national character. However, our enemies have used our freedoms against with devastating effect so I feel comfortable with extreme solutions for extreme situations. This isn’t born out of some irrational fear regarding terrorist attacks but out of the zeal I have to purse and kill this enemy. I don’t hold slippery slope arguments in high esteem and I trust that when this enemy is no longer a credible threat we will be able regain what we have lost.

“that the Gitmo Archipelago is a one-off response to 9/11, I can understand his response”
DaveL,
That is part of it but I’d also add that I trust the Bush administration and not just because they’re Republicans, I’d trust any President in this situation was working to keep Americans safe. I’m naturally suspicious of government and desire openness for accountability reasons but I don’t always believe we can have it in national security matters. As for brown skinned foreigners crack I think I’m being projected upon- this is about terrorist ideology and not race. I reserve cells at Gitmo for anyone with blond hair and blue eyes interested in helping Al-Qaeda.

CharleyCarp
As odious as the KKK is I don’t think they warrant an extreme type of treatment. Terrorism Americans visit upon one another, be it the Klan or Kaczynski, is aptly handled by our criminal Justice system. Al Qaeda is an amorphous international organization hiding in a region in the world where we have few real allies. We don’t have the time (if we even knew the means) to build the proper relationships with the proper groups who could become our allies and who we could trust to take care of this. Therefore I believe extreme solutions are warranted. And again, it isn’t about race.

[Jesurgislac]

Sulla, you do seem to be harboring the delusion that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are all al-Qaeda or interested in helping al-Qaeda. If you can show evidence that all 540 prisoners are al-Qaeda, or have proven themselves "interested in helping" before they were arrested, please do. Cite here.

The "extreme solution" of Guantanamo Bay is that the US should be allowed to hold prisoner anyone they feel like, for as long as they like, without being required to show that they are guilty of anything. What exactly is this a "solution" to, in your view?

[CharleyCarp]

Sulla:

Al Qaeda is an amorphous international organization hiding in a region in the world where we have few real allies.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure that it's fair to say this about Afghanistan (post-2002), Gambia, or Bosnia. And how does this account for prisoners apprehended by Pakistani authorities, and turned over to the US?

We don’t have the time (if we even knew the means) to build the proper relationships with the proper groups who could become our allies and who we could trust to take care of this.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I agree that fighting AQ is difficult, and requires that we act aggressively. Certainly it would be a good thing to enlist allies in the effort, and I think that there's been a pretty fair record on this. Pakistani (and Syrian, for God's sake) intelligence may not be perfect allies, but they're as good as we could get, and they served adequately. I would say that it is this cooperation, much more than detentions of folks in Gitmo, that accounts for the failure of AQ to reach the US these last several years.

I do not see how our lack of allies requires indefinite detention without trial. Or abusive interrogation. I understand the short-term case for trying to get information from a KSM about ongoing operations, but this is of a very different character that long term detention and repeated interrogation of ordinary schmoes on a mosaic theory basis.

Therefore I believe extreme solutions are warranted.

Well, I think that some extreme solutions are warranted -- a military strike at AQ for instance -- but others are not, like beating a taxi driver to death. What you have not explained is why, once AQ members have been removed from immediate effectiveness (that is, once apprehended, and removed from the "battlefield") they cannot be tried like ordinary criminals. Is it because they have committed no crimes? Or because it's difficult to prove they have committed any crime? The problem with this approach is that you end up with taxi drivers. Or aid workers.

The trouble with simply saying that extreme solutions are required is that it's a blank check.

And again, it isn’t about race.

This is an interesting statement. I'm not sure whether you are simply reacting to my mention of the KKK -- what I meant was that if you are going to arrest and hold people for membership in a group, or sympathy with it, you're going to have plenty of people to arrest. My point wasn't about the ideology of the KKK at all, but about its dangerousness.

That said, there are a couple of things to think about wrt race. First, although I suppose most prisoners in Guantanamo are of the same race -- whatever a race* actually is -- one cannot help noting the fact that citizens of European countries seem to get released at much higher rates that citizens of the Arabian peninsula. I think one would be hard put, on the public record, to conclude that this is explained by the underlying facts of the prisoner's alleged conduct. I think this is both about our relationships with European governments, and about some assumptions we make. Racism is maybe a little strong a charge to make, but it may be fair to say that racism's step-brother is in play here. There is clearly, though, a rascist component to the intake side of the question. Like 'driving while black,' many prisoners' primary crime seems to consist of being an Arab in Pakistan or Afghanistan. It may be that many Arabs in Afghanistan in 2001-02 were "members"** of AQ, but you can be absolutely sure that not all of them were. And if "membership" in AQ isn't going to be the test for who gets locked up, but it's going to be based on some kind of conduct aimed towards hostile action, then you're looking at fewer people still.

* Are there races? If so, how many? This is a lot more difficult than it seems. I prefer to think in terms of ethnicities, because in all contexts other than black/white, it seems to me to be how people actually live.

** I don't know what membership in AQ means, really. It's not like they issue ID cards and collect union dues. It's not like a country club (although I wouldn't be surprised if there is some kind of sponsorship thing). Let's say, though, that it's like the Republican party: a guy who registers to vote as a Republican in Maryland is no less a member of the party than the junior senator from Montana -- membership being essentially binary. (Actually, one would say that the Marylander is no more a member, because in Montana one does not register to vote by party). And we're all familiar with people who say that they are conservatives, not really Republicans, but that their conservatism inclines them to vote Republican in every election. If you've decided that Republicanism is a dangerous treason, and you're arresting people based on "membership" in it, is there really no difference between Slartibartfast, Von, Bird, (all three of whom I would say are in taxonomically distinct catagories) and Dick Cheney?

[Jesurgislac]

On reflection, "harboring the delusion" was rude, and I take it back. Sorry, Sulla.

However, the presumption that all prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are terrorists has been asserted over and over again for well over three years, but it's never been proved true yet, and I doubt it's true now, whatever Dick Cheney may say.

[Sulla]

Jes,
I believe I have conceded that the detainees who were already released were innocent and that others still being held likely are. The thorny issue for me is that some others are likely guilty but we don’t have enough evidence to deal with them in traditional ways. You advocate that lacking the evidence these detainees should be released, I’m not so gung-ho about that and trust the military will sort it out. It is essentially a guilty before proven innocent argument that I feel is warranted by our lack of vigilance for the 25 years prior to 9/11. You feel differently and have 200+ years of legal precedence to back you up. Fine, but I’m not arguing this in court. I’m just saying I’m comfortable with the situation as it is. Take it for what it’s worth.

Charley Carp,
No matter what the President or the media says I don’t trust the governments of Pakistan, Syria or Saudi Arabia to fully help us out in the war on terror. I believe they do what they feel they have to out of fear rather than genuine cooperation. So I think it is prudent for us to reserve extraordinary means in dealing with AQ for the near future. It is a blank check and abuses will occur. In a just world I would be against such things but given the world that we have and the situation we are in I’ll live with it for now. And it would be some relative of racism if most of the detainees were solely picked up because they’re gulf state Arabs in Afghanistan but I have yet to see evidence that is why they are in Gitmo. If that turns out to be the case then yes, outrage is warranted.

[Jesurgislac]

Sulla: The thorny issue for me is that some others are likely guilty but we don’t have enough evidence to deal with them in traditional ways. ... Take it for what it’s worth.

I do. You are comfortable with the US running a gulag. Okay.

[Sulla]

Just as comfortable as you are in setting terrorists free.

[Gary Farber]

"You are comfortable with the US running a gulag. Okay."

"Just as comfortable as you are in setting terrorists free."

Indeed, making the most simplistic possible accusation as to someone else's beliefs is clearly the best way to persuade people and mutually learn from each other. How useful it is to speak in hostile bumper stickers!

Everyone should be sure to learn from these exemplars of competent and useful debate.

The key, of course, is to be a content-free as possible while still maintaining maximum self-righteousness and self-congratulation. Study and learn!

Eventually, with work, practitioners can graduate from grade school down to kindergarten-level debate. And they'll feel even better about their moral superiority!

[Jesurgislac]

Sulla: Just as comfortable as you are in setting terrorists free.

The difference is: I have never said the US should set terrorists free.

You have explicitly said that you're comfortable with the US arresting/kidnapping people who may well be guilty of nothing at all, and holding them illegally indefinitely.

You may argue that my strong feeling that the rule of law should not be set aside no matter how scared some Americans are is identical with "setting terrorists free", but you'll have to prove that. I'd like to see you try.

Actually, I wouldn't, really. You're comfortable with the US running a gulag. I see no point in trying to change your mind: I prefer to deal with those who are outraged that the US runs a gulag, whether or not they accept that it does. Charles Bird may wish so much to believe that Guantanamo Bay is not a gulag that he declines to look at the evidence that it is, but at least he's not comfortable with the US running one.

[Sulla]

Gary,
You’re right of course but I give what I get.

Jes,
If you don’t believe we will release terrorists if we released every detainee we lack enough evidence to prosecute in a traditional court of law then you are naive. Like I said the situation as it is now is guilty before proven innocent. They’re there, locked up in Gitmo and the powers that be think it is best so I don’t see the situation as me having to prove to you all 540 are guilty. I see it as you having the equally impossible task of proving to the government all 540 are innocent. Good luck.

[Anarch]

Like I said the situation as it is now is guilty before proven innocent.

Guilty of what?

[Anarch]

Also: what, beyond might, gives you the right to decide to abrogate the liberties of those imprisoned? More generally, what do you think, beyond might, gives the US government the right to decide to unilaterally and without trial decide to abrogate the liberties of those imprisoned? And what restitution do you feel will be due to those who were wrongfully detained?

[Jesurgislac]

Sulla: If you don’t believe we will release terrorists if we released every detainee we lack enough evidence to prosecute in a traditional court of law then you are naive.

And you are comfortable with keeping innocent people locked up indefinitely because "the powers that be" think they might be guilty. Which is to say: you're comfortable with the US running a gulag.

I really don't see that we have anything further to discuss.

[CharleyCarp]

Sulla, even if a presumption of guilt was justified -- and I don't think it is -- surely the prisoner ought to be afforded some kind of fair proceding in which to prove innocence. What we have here is massive resistance even to that.

As for whether we'd release "terrorists," I suppose that depends on exactly what a terrorist is. Someone who has engaged in the practice? Someone who might? Someone we now can reasonably fear will take revenge? The little old lady from Switzerland?

This is just one of many problems with Rumsfeld's statement today that these people will be held until the "war" is over. It's not like there is an actual enemy side with which peace can be concluded. No, this war goes until we stop using the word -- but if anyone who is released, regardless of their conduct before being apprehended, engages in terrorism, then the war is back on. So it's another Catch 22: the war isn't over until all the potential terrorists (a category that includes taxi drivers) -- including those incarcerated -- are permanently disabled from all ability to commit acts of terror, and none of those incarcerated gets released until the war is over.

[Anarch]

So it's another Catch 22: the war isn't over until all the potential terrorists (a category that includes taxi drivers) -- including those incarcerated -- are permanently disabled from all ability to commit acts of terror, and none of those incarcerated gets released until the war is over.

Simple solution:

1. Build a big wall around the United States.
2. Define everyone on the other side of the wall to be inside the prison and the United States to be the sole lands outside it.
3. Declare victory.

[Sulla]

“Guilty of what?”
Conspiracy to commit terrorism

“More generally, what do you think, beyond might, gives the US government the right to decide to unilaterally and without trial decide to abrogate the liberties of those imprisoned?”
Nothing

“And what restitution do you feel will be due to those who were wrongfully detained?”
Nothing

“Which is to say: you're comfortable with the US running a gulag.”
No more comfortable than you are in letting the guilty go. Which is to say: you’re comfortable with setting terrorists free.

“I really don't see that we have anything further to discuss.”
Fine

“What we have here is massive resistance even to that.”
I believe the stakes are too high for reasonable doubt, sorry.

FYI- one more post on another thread and I'm out til Thur, golfing tomorrow.

[Anarch]

“More generally, what do you think, beyond might, gives the US government the right to decide to unilaterally and without trial decide to abrogate the liberties of those imprisoned?”
Nothing

So the legitimacy of our actions reduces, in your mind, to "might makes right"? That's... problematic, to say the least.

“And what restitution do you feel will be due to those who were wrongfully detained?”
Nothing

Why? Surely if someone were, by your own admission, illegally detained without cause, they should be entitled to some form of compensation?

Which is to say: you’re comfortable with setting terrorists free.

Assumes facts not in evidence. The correct formulation would be that Jes is comfortable with setting potential or alleged terrorists free -- again, by your own admission. That's a huge distinction.

And enjoy your golf.

[Jesurgislac]

Anarch: Assumes facts not in evidence. The correct formulation would be that Jes is comfortable with setting potential or alleged terrorists free -- again, by your own admission. That's a huge distinction.

And at that, it makes me twitchy, I confess; especially as the US has acted in such a way as to practically ensure that anyone who was sent to Guantanamo Bay is now an enemy of the US, whether or not they ever act on their emnity.

But, not enough. It hardly makes the US any safer to lock up a few hundred people on the basis that some of them may be guilty of wanting to commit crimes against the US. It's the kind of thinking that leads to bombing whole neighborhoods because one alleged terrorist lives there, so if you kill the alleged terrorist (along with a dozen or so innocent civilians) you're at least minus one terrorist, yes?

Except that, as Israel has confirmed over and over again, destroying a dozen innocent people to get one possible terrorist does not end up with a nice arithmetical minus-one terrorst.

Rather, it ends up with a few dozen people who now feel a settled and powerless hatred towards the enemy who so casually destroyed innocent people to get one person whom they couldn't even prove was guilty. That feeling of hatred combined with powerlessness is precisely the kind of feeling which ultimately produces terrorism: mere hatred is not enough. It must be a permanent feeling of hatred combined with a sense of powerlessness to change the situation through any normal means. My country has some experience of this.

Once take the step of creating a gulag: unless you are prepared to expand the gulag network indefinitely, filling the gulags with more and more people so that no one ever dares so much as lift their head (and for that you need a more efficient policing system than the one the US presently has in the countries from which it mainly harvests its prisoners) and eventually the whole affair will blow up in your face.

I am fairly convinced that Sulla is comfortable with this merely because he hasn't thought all the consequences through. (Or possibly because he is uninformed about the various methods used to fill up the American gulags, and thinks that probably most of the prisoners in the gulags must be guilty of something, since after all, they have been arrested.)

At least, I'm going to hope that's why Sulla is comfortable with the American gulags. It would distress me to think that he knows they were filled more-or-less at random, with no known process of determining why anyone should go there - and doesn't care.