The Things We Throw Away

Anne Applebaum remembers what Amnesty International used to be, and laments what it has become: 

I don't know when Amnesty ceased to be politically neutral or at what point its leaders' views morphed into ordinary anti-Americanism. But surely Amnesty's recent misuse of the word "gulag" marks some kind of turning point. In the past few days, not only has Amnesty's secretary general, Irene Khan, called the U.S. prison for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "the gulag of our times," but Amnesty's U.S. director, William Schulz, has agreed that U.S. prisons for enemy combatants are "similar at least in character, if not in size, to what happened in the gulag." In an interview, Schulz also said that foreign governments should prosecute U.S. officials, as if they were the equivalent of the Soviet Union's criminal leadership.

Thus Guantanamo is the gulag, President Bush is Generalissimo Stalin, and the United States, in Khan's words, is a "hyper-power" that "thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights" just like the Soviet Union. In part, I find this comparison infuriating because in the Soviet Union it would have been impossible for the Supreme Court to order the administration to change its policies in Guantanamo Bay, as it has done, or for the media to investigate Abu Ghraib, as they has done, or for Irene Khan to publish an independent report about anything at all.

A commonly-heard defense is that Amnesty's rhetoric was merely meant to draw attention to the persistent mistreatment and murder (yes, "murder," unlike "gulag," is an accurate term) of unarmed detainees under our care.  That noble ends justify a noble lie, and its attendant slander.  Indeed, this seems to be Amnesty's only remaining defense, since even Amnesty has conceded (as it must) that its use of the term gulag was wildly inaccurate. 

A preference for doublespeak over the dictionary, however, is indeed a slender reed on which to hang a defense.  Applebaum continues:

Like Khan and Schulz, I am appalled by this administration's detention practices and interrogation policies, by the lack of a legal mechanism to judge the guilt of alleged terrorists, and by the absence of any outside investigation into reports of prison abuse. But I loathe these things precisely because the United States is not the Soviet Union, because our detention centers are not intrinsic to our political system, and because they are therefore not "similar in character" to the gulag at all.

And then comes the rub:

Most of all, though, I hate them because they are counterproductive. Like the Cold War, the war on terrorism is an ideological war, one that we will "win" when our opponents give up and join us, just like the East Germans who streamed over the Berlin Wall. But if the young people of the Arab world are to reject radical Islam and climb that wall, they will have to admire what they see on the other side. Almost never before have we so badly needed neutral, credible, human rights advocates who can investigate the U.S. detention policy in context, remembering that we live in a system whose courts, legislature and media can all effect change.

Amnesty, by misusing language, by discarding its former neutrality, and by handing the administration an easy way to brush off "ridiculous" accusations, also deprives itself of what should be its best ally. The United States, as the world's largest and most powerful democracy, remains, for all its flaws, the world's best hope for the promotion of human rights. If Amnesty still believes in its stated mission, its leaders should push American democratic institutions to influence U.S. policy for the good of the world, and not attack the American government for the satisfaction of their own political faction.

(Emphasis mine.)

Never forget our errors, our sins of omission of commission, or our excesses of fear and anger.  Never forget the wrongs that have been perpetrated in our name in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo and other places whose names and places remain unknown.  Don't leave unanswered the amoralists who purport to the high ground, and who propose that all is justified against an evil foe.

No, do not forget any of these things; or that this is a battle of ideas that must be mostly fought with trades and exchanges and travel and open debate.  That the advantages of Islam as peace -- our vision, and also the vision and belief of so many Muslims -- must be argued for and shown at every turn in order to put the lie to those who rejoice in bloodletting.   This is the clarity that we must have -- a clarity that leads a young man to stand in the way of a column of tanks and a people to bring down the wall that divides them -- if we are to defeat the militant Islamists as we defeated the communists before them.

But also do not forget that there is good and evil in the world, and that we -- the free societies of the North, South, East, and West -- are the good. 

Comments

[liberal japonicus]

Congrats to von on creating a working time machine. The ability to put me right back in the thick of things previously argued is really stunning.

Applebaum notes
Sometimes these reports were remarkably detailed, testifying to the extraordinary ability of prisoners to smuggle out their stories.

One could assume that we do secrecy better than the Soviets (yay, we're No.1!), or that the level of inventiveness on the part of our prisoners is not as high as it used to be. (not like the good old days!)

[2shoes]

I, like Anderson, would like to know the correct word for "an extralegal camp into which prisoners can be cast and held indefinitely with no meaningful process for years."

"Afghan Outreach Centres"?

[Slartibartfast]

Some of you might want to consider that Anne Applebaum has done a little research into the matter of gulags, and may just know one when she sees one.

[Jesurgislac]

radish: I, like Anderson, would like to know the correct word for "an extralegal camp into which prisoners can be cast and held indefinitely with no meaningful process for years."

So would I, Radish, but since Von has utterly ignored all the responses he got from people protesting his focus on AI's use of the word "gulag", I suspect none of us are going to get an answer: Von's writing on this topic indicates that he is far more interested in slamming Amnesty for using "the wrong word" than he is in slamming the administration for setting up "an extralegal camp into which prisoners can be cast and held indefinitely with no meaningful process for years."

[liberal japonicus]

"Afghan Outreach Centres"?

Faith-based detention processing centers

[nous_athanatos]

Applebaum writes:

I don't know when Amnesty ceased to be politically neutral or at what point its leaders' views morphed into ordinary anti-Americanism.

The argument here, that by making a polemical and faulty identification (guantanamo=gulag) AI has ceased to be a politically neutral agency and has instead become anti-American seems to be missing quite a few parts of the argument. How is this statement in itself anti-American? How is it implicitly political in a way that calling the USSR a totalitarian state is not? It seems that the objection here is actually to AI's use of emotionally affective rhetoric. It is anti-American only in that it is a loaded term. Nowhere in this comparison is there any notion that the US is full of bad people who should not exist. Nowhere in this language is there a message that we should seek regime change. Anyone who reads the AI statement as either of these things is inferring it themselves.

Like the Cold War, the war on terrorism is an ideological war, one that we will "win" when our opponents give up and join us, just like the East Germans who streamed over the Berlin Wall. But if the young people of the Arab world are to reject radical Islam and climb that wall, they will have to admire what they see on the other side. Almost never before have we so badly needed neutral, credible, human rights advocates who can investigate the U.S. detention policy in context, remembering that we live in a system whose courts, legislature and media can all effect change.

Wow. That is exactly the sort of reasoning by which the communist party attacked Camus and threw him out--it is irresponsible to criticize the institution because it makes people less likely to join the cause. The end (ending the oppression of workers/stamping out terrorism) is more important than any messy and immoral means adopted in pursuit of that goal. Ideology must win.

AI is using overblown (and counterproductive) rhetoric, but they are being fought with propaganda.

[Dantheman]

Slarti,

"Some of you might want to consider that Anne Applebaum has done a little research into the matter of gulags, and may just know one when she sees one."

That was what I presumed tacitus meant in his early comment, which felix's response of 1:37 PM dealt with.

[Jon H]

Slarti writes: "Some of you might want to consider that Anne Applebaum has done a little research into the matter of gulags, and may just know one when she sees one."

Yes, we know. But this complaint simply suggests that the Soviets used their gulag too much, rather than that there is something fundamentally wrong about such a system.

ie, would the Soviet gulag have been okay if only half as many people had gone through it? A quarter? 5%?

Is the point that it is permissible to run a gulag if you don't put too many people through it?

Also, by this argument, you couldn't call the actual gulag the gulag until it got as bad as we know the gulag eventually got.

What do you call a gulag that's new, and hasn't been used much yet?

[sidereal]

Neo -

"But if they aren't changing minds, and therefore doing their job of promoting human rights..."

Isn't this a self-fulfilling prophecy?

They're not trying to change the minds of members of the administration. . that's not how things get done. They're trying to raise public awareness in order to raise public pressure on the administration, which is how things get done. I don't defend their use of the word gulag, but the fact is that you have a choice as to whether or not you let that word distract you from the content. You have a choice as to whether you're going to allow your mind to be changed on this matter, and if you or anyone else chooses not to, the fault does not lie with AI alone.

And do you think that's really a fair description of the criticism of AI? That their choice makes them insufficiently effective in ending these practices? Or would you characterize it more as defensive and offended?

[Slartibartfast]

You forgot inadequately at the end of that last sentence. Per the source:

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject[emphasis mine]. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

[DaveL]

Neolith, your last few posts are interesting (particularly the long one at 4:37), but you don't suggest a mechanism by which "we" figure out that "we" overreacted and behaved shamefully. I'd suggest that part of that mechanism involves the interaction, over time, of people who strongly oppose the policy in question with people who are initially either neutral or mildly favorable toward the policy. I'd further suggest that the use of inflammatory language to strongly condemn the policy in question may, at least sometimes, be effective in such circumstances. So when you talk about how "we" figure out that the Administration's policy on Guantanmo, etc., is abominable, I'd suggest that what we're really talking about is getting from the current situation, in which a significant minority (40-45%) thinks the policy is abominable, to a situation in which a solid majority (60% plus) thinks it's abominable. Bush will go to his grave convinced of his own righteousness, but the target audience isn't Bush, it's the 20% or so whose opinions need to change to change how "we" as a country view this mess.

[Stan LS]

Hmmm.. Just curious. Anyone here actually aware as to who comprised the Soviet gulags?

[DaveL]

Oops, that line near the end should have said "(40-45%?)." I don't know what the actual number is, but I'd guess it's not too far below the percentage of the population that voted for Kerry.

[felixrayman]

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject

Applebaum's bio is here. Care to tell me what in that bio I should accept as certifying Applebaum as an authority on the influence of radical Islam on terrorism?

[Jon H]

"Just curious. Anyone here actually aware as to who comprised the Soviet gulags?"

Pretty much anyone from intellectuals to affluent peasants to Axis POWs in WW2 to common criminals to political prisoners to purged party members.

To some extent the population probably depended on who Stalin thought was plotting against him at that time.

[Jesurgislac]

Stan LS: Anyone here actually aware as to who comprised the Soviet gulags?

According to Solzhenitsyn (from what I have read so far in The Gulag Archipelago) pretty much anyone and everyone. The methods and processes he describes there being used to justify filling the gulags are very similar to the methods and processes used to send Iraqis and Afghans and other nationalities to the American archipelago of "extralegal camps into which prisoners can be cast and held indefinitely with no meaningful process for years".

[Slartibartfast]

Uh...felix, she's not an authority on plumbing (AFAIK, anyway), either. Which is fortunate because she wasn't being represented as one.

[liberal japonicus]

I second DaveL's compliment to Neolith as well as his question. I would be interested to know if the "gulag of our times" comment was a slip of the tongue or thought out in advance. It's clear that being the Red Cross or being Amnesty is not opening any doors, so I'm wondering if Neolith's (and other people's opinions) would change based on knowing that.

StanLS
who comprised the Soviet gulags
What do you mean by 'comprise'? The jailers or the jailed?

[Hal]

Rather funny aside. Are any of those who characterize AI's use of the "phrase in question" as over the top and worthy of seriously destroying their credibility willing to go through the past 5 years and do the same with every over the top phrase uttered?

If not, then the question is why on earth is there so much focus on this particular incident. Is AI placed on a pedestal by Von, Tacitus and others who have now had their idealism shattered because of a mis characterization - i.e. one single phrase?

I doubt it. So the question really is, what's Von's motives here? And the answer doesn't appear to be "to make AI a better organization". Rather, it's to tear it down so that the rest of their well placed, polite and quite to the point criticisms don't sting as much. It's a useful distraction to avoid talking about the elephant (or blue whale in this case) plainly occupying the room.

And that, quite frankly, is a piece of honor that Von himself is throwing away.

Sorry for the interruption.

[Stan LS]

Jes,

According to Solzhenitsyn (from what I have read so far in The Gulag Archipelago) pretty much anyone and everyone.

Why... That sounds exactly like the folks we got at gitmo!

[Slartibartfast]

Just in case memory doesn't serve you well, felix, I'm going to quote Tacitus from way upthread:

Applebaum is a leading authority on authoritarian repression in general and the gulags in particular. Ignore her at peril of your public esteem, not hers.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, and her bio does pretty much support that claim.

[Gary Farber]

"Care to tell me what in that bio I should accept as certifying Applebaum as an authority on the influence of radical Islam on terrorism?"

Not me. She seems to be entitled to an expert opinion on what a "gualg" is, though.

At this point, by the way, I have to step back and mock the whole debate about the AI use of "gulag." Yes, AI had a valid-up-to-a-point point in using a flamnatory term to call attention to a genuinely disturbing policy by the U.S. No, "gulag" didn't accurately describe it, but rather grossly exaggerated it. This is neither wholly good nor wholly bad, and reasonable people will disagree on the ration; having agreed on that, it's time to move on, in my opinion. Meanwhile, arguing over the accuracy of the word is a distraction from discussing the actual facts, which are far more important than how exaggerated some bad rhetoric aobut the facts are. Myself, I wish everyone might be able to agree that "gulag" has a few points of relevant descriptiveness to the present system, and many other points that lack and distort accurate descriptiveness, and then we might all get back to discussing what actions to actually take, how to handle prisoners, what laws and rights should be applied to them, where this "War on Terror" is going, what resources should be invested, what mistakes should be avoided, and what dangers, all around, are involved. Those are the important questions, in my view, not an argument over fine-tuning the use of the word "gulag."

But that's just me. Much as I enjoy debating the best use of words, there are actually more important issues in the world, from time to time.

[Slartibartfast]

willing to go through the past 5 years and do the same with every over the top phrase uttered

No one's got that much time. It'd take an entire government think-tank to make even a wee dent in that pile.

[Alison]

"I'm part of the et al, I suppose, so I'll return your request with a question: Why do you need a (probably inflamatory) label for it? If we're talking about Camp X-Ray, talk about it, if we're talking about CIA detention centers, talk about that."

I'm a bit late to this, but I think this is actually an important question. I do feel the need for a single label (though I agree that gulag is the wrong choice) because I see them (being deliberately vague) all as part of the same whole. And seeing them as all part of a unified whole, or (more charitably) as all symptoms of the same underlying problem, frightens and appalls me much more than if I thought them a series of basically unrelated incidents. So I'm not sure that it's an issue of inflammatory labels so much as a marker for two very different ways of perceiving the events, and for identifying a difference which has strong implications for how people assess the issue. And now back to lurking...

[felixrayman]

Just in case memory doesn't serve you well, felix, I'm going to quote Tacitus from way upthread:

Applebaum is a leading authority on authoritarian repression in general and the gulags in particular. Ignore her at peril of your public esteem, not hers.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, and her bio does pretty much support that claim.

Who was he responding to when he said that, and what fact about the gulag was in contention at that point that Applebaum could help resolve?

[otto]

From the Fox News transcript to which Von linked:

-“SCHULZ: Well, Chris, clearly this is not an exact or a literal analogy. [which analogies often aren’t, which is why they are used]

-“But what in size and in duration, there are not similarities between U.S. detention facilities and the gulag. People are not being starved in those facilities. They're not being subjected to forced labor.”

-“But there are some similarities . . .”

-“And those are similar at least in character if not in size to what happened in the gulag and in many other prison systems in world history.”

These statements are construed as a concession on the part of AI that their “use of the term gulag was wildly inaccurate”? (Von: “Actually, Sidereal, my beef is with the failure to call things what they are -- whether it's done by Amnesty, the Bush Administration, or anyone. Either we care about accuracy, or we do not.”)

Applebaum: “But if the young people of the Arab world are to reject radical Islam and climb that wall, they will have to admire what they see on the other side.”

Yes, if they can only see our side: an appropriate Manichean worldview – one might say the same about rejecting radical American exceptionalism. Why is there never an injunction by folks like Applebaum that Americans try to see things from the Arab perspective? McNamara had a thing or two to say about such willful blindness in regard to Vietnam.

I think it is amusing that some folks think that they can hide things like what appears in the AI report from the world and thus preserve a positive image of the US, an image they then expect others to “climb that wall” to be a part of. These folks are only deceiving themselves. I suspect that the “young people of the Arab world” have a much better appreciation of what is happening in their neck of the woods than most Americans (read some of the Arab newspapers and see what I mean).

Von: “But also do not forget that there is good and evil in the world, and that we -- the free societies of the North, South, East, and West -- are the good.”

This self-congratulatory bedtime story will get “free societies” exactly nowhere in this “battle of ideas” for hearts and minds because it precludes those who adopt this “good” versus “evil” paradigm from empathizing, that is understanding, the other side. This is the self-defeating blind spot of such an appreciation of the way the world works.

Von: “No. Amnesty did this to itself;”

Hahahahahaha. This is the sort of objectification that absolves one of any responsibility for their own actions. Just like the those detained in Gitmo brought torture on their own heads, I suppose (the “we did not start this war” rationalization by the Administration)?

Von: “I emphasized that line because it speaks to the truth of the struggle: Young Moslem men and women will cease to blow themselves up with the current regularity when they see the advantages of a society that is prosperous, free, and governed by secular laws.”

Seriously, this is really off base. Suicide bombers engage in the behavior that defines them because they can’t see the advantages of a “prosperous,” “free” society??? Good God! This assessment is fundamentally wrongheaded, as I believe Felixrayman pointed out.

Ral: “So, to the extent that AI's use of the term "gulag" amounts to name calling, I find it disappointing.”

Ral, is it AI’s use of the term or how it has been spun that amounts to name calling?

[2shoes]

Is it even worth pointing this out (again):

Well, Chris, clearly this is not an exact or a literal analogy. And the secretary general has acknowledged that.

There's no question. But what in size and in duration, there are not similarities between U.S. detention facilities and the gulag. People are not being starved in those facilities. They're not being subjected to forced labor.

But there are some similarities. The United States is maintaining an archipelago of prisons around the world, many of them secret prisons into which people are being literally disappeared -- held in indefinite incommunicado detention without access to lawyers or a judicial system or to their families. And in some cases, at least, we know that they are being mistreated, abused, tortured and even killed.

And those are similar at least in character if not in size to what happened in the gulag and in many other prison systems in world history.

-AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WILLIAM SCHULZ
FoxNews Sunday, June 5, 2005

[Hal]

No one's got that much time. It'd take an entire government think-tank to make even a wee dent in that pile.

And yet we're devoting so much time and invective on a silly metaphor used by AI. Seems like in the larger scheme of things, it's just completely irrelevant.

One could, for example, debate whether the "War on Terror" is also a similar "over the top" phrase that has no literal meaning and is actually causing major policy shifts, curtailing of civil rights, and - yes - even torture.

But discussing that would actually put more focus on the very thing we're trying to avoid focusing on by having this silly debate about the precise meaning of "gulag" and whether the metaphor was appropriate.

Ah, the things we throw away - to coin a phrase.

[Jesurgislac]

Stan LS: Why... That sounds exactly like the folks we got at gitmo!

It does, doesn't it? There was a schoolteacher there for three years, arrested by the Pakistani police for the crime of being a British Muslim in Pakistan at the wrong time; there's a couple of British businessmen who flew to the Gambia with a mobile phone charger in their luggage that the security at the airport didn't recognise; there's any number of Afghan peasants who got captured by warlords and sold to the US for the bounty the US military were paying then on anyone who was called a "Taliban fighter": there were three British kids from Tipton who'd gone to Pakistan to visit family and went to Afghanistan when the US attacked to see if there was anything they could do to help... Anyone and everyone. No question of process: arrest appears to have been enough to presume guilt. The interrogator's job, just as in the Soviet gulags, was not to discover if the captives were innocent or guilty, but to discover what they were guilty of - by torture, if they declined to confess without it.

[felixrayman]

Myself, I wish everyone might be able to agree that "gulag" has a few points of relevant descriptiveness to the present system, and many other points that lack and distort accurate descriptiveness

I'm still waiting to hear what an acceptable alternative word or term would be - a brief, clear term that describes the set of all places where people are held indefinitely without charges, with little or no due process, often in secret, with little or no contact with the outside world, and where they are interrogated, sometimes beaten, often abused or disrespected, and sometimes murdered. Anyone have a short, clear term to use that they think comes closer to describing that than gulag?

[von]

Otto:

These statements are construed as a concession on the part of AI that their “use of the term gulag was wildly inaccurate”?

Mr. Schultz admitted that Guantanamo was not a gulag, correct?

Mr. Schultz did not dispute any of the differences cited by Mr. Wallace, which distinguish Guantanamo from a gulag, correct?

Mr. Schultz acknowledged that calling Guantanamo a gulag was a matter of rhetoric, correct?

Indeed, Mr. Schultz merely stated that the abuses at Guantanamo "are similar at least in character if not in size to what happened in the gulag and in many other prison systems in world history," did he not?

Please, continue quoting Mr. Schultz appearance on FNS; be sure to include the bit where he suggests that Amnesty used the word "gulag" as a publicity stunt.

Von's writing on this topic indicates that he is far more interested in slamming Amnesty for using "the wrong word" than he is in slamming the administration for setting up "an extralegal camp into which prisoners can be cast and held indefinitely with no meaningful process for years."

Yeah. Sure. Because I've never written on our treatment of the Guantanamo detainees, right? I mean, it's not like I all-but-called for Gonzales to be disbarred for writing the "torture memo."

What crap.

Otto and Felixrayman:

Seriously, this is really off base. Suicide bombers engage in the behavior that defines them because they can’t see the advantages of a “prosperous,” “free” society???

Or, more precisely, they cannot see how those advantages will inure to them.

One does not blow oneself up for liberty or prosperity. One fights and dies for those things, perhaps, but one does not kill indiscriminately. No: One blows oneself up for God.

[radish]

Some of you might want to consider that Anne Applebaum has done a little research into the matter of gulags, and may just know one when she sees one.

It didn't seem worth reiterating. I said brilliant scholar mostly because IIRC my parents (both big Solzhenitsyn fans) recommended Gulag very highly. Never read her, myself.

Y'wanna know what I really think? I think hell hath no fury like an expert who sees their particular technical jargon transformed into mere vernacular. Compound that with the sheer screaming terror she would experience if she actually stopped to absorb the implications of the US government disappearing and torturing people, and presto....

AI is clearly at fault here.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm still waiting to hear what an acceptable alternative word or term would be - a brief, clear term that describes the set of all places where people are held indefinitely without charges

Why don't you just pick one? Of course, there's the possibility that no one's going to have the same word-association, but that's the risk you take when you use a word outside its normal meaning.

[von]

Anyone have a short, clear term to use that they think comes closer to describing that than gulag?

Internment camp.

[Neolith]

I don't defend their use of the word gulag, but the fact is that you have a choice as to whether or not you let that word distract you from the content. You have a choice as to whether you're going to allow your mind to be changed on this matter, and if you or anyone else chooses not to, the fault does not lie with AI alone.

Yes, I totally agree. And note that I think regardless of what happens in the meantime, I still have a gut good feeling that we as a public will do the Right Thing. I'm just arguing accelerating or slowing down change.

Now, having said that, we all do have a choice in how we react to unpleasant truths, or even unpleasant half-truths. However, we're all human, and we're biologically hardwired to reject views that don't reflect our own. Even a fairly open minded person has to on occasion fight the old evolutionary "knee-jerk". So, my point is, why make it harder? Or do you not think inflammatory dialog does so? We might just have a difference of opinion.

And do you think that's really a fair description of the criticism of AI? That their choice makes them insufficiently effective in ending these practices? Or would you characterize it more as defensive and offended?

What do you mean? I don't know about insufficiently effective, but I certainly believe it makes them less effective, which should be enough reason not to do it.

but you don't suggest a mechanism by which "we" figure out that "we" overreacted and behaved shamefully. I'd suggest that part of that mechanism involves the interaction, over time, of people who strongly oppose the policy in question with people who are initially either neutral or mildly favorable toward the policy. I'd further suggest that the use of inflammatory language to strongly condemn the policy in question may, at least sometimes, be effective in such circumstances.

I think that argument is there, sure, I just reject it due to personal history. I've had my mind changed radically at least two times. I don't want to get too far into details for obvious reasons, but I can say that it was never because of invective or over the top comparisons of the way I think to hitler or slaveholders or whatnot.

I think that once a person reaches a threshold point, your theory may very well be true. That the straw that breaks the entropy of the camel's back may on occasion be more in the form of a brick bat. But if a person is not at that threshold point, I think its counter productive. And since 99% of the time, 99% of the people aren't at threshold points, the tactic is overall unsuccessful. Interestingly, another part of human nature makes us susceptable to remembering sucess and dismissing all failure, so I can see where if the brick bat worked for people once or twice, they'd latch on to that as the best method. Or maybe I'm deluded. But maybe I'm just getting too meta.

but the target audience isn't Bush, it's the 20% or so whose opinions need to change to change how "we" as a country view this mess.

True. The question then is, do these people react favorably to being forced to admit that America is running a defacto Gulag, even if that term is inaccurate, or at least hyperbole. Does anyone respond favorably to the suggestion that they or their decisions are monsterous? Why not? Because hardly anyone is really a monster. Yet monsterous things still get done. I almost think the trick is to get the truth to sneak up and surprise people, so it slips past their defense systems, ninja like. How does one do that consistantly and successfully? If I knew that, I'd write a book. But I think I've pieced together how not to do it. Again, I may be wrong.

[ral]

is it AI's use of the term or how it has been spun that amounts to name calling?

Otto, I think both are, though to varying degrees. So much yelling passes for discourse these days, and shock value seems to be used to attract public attention, but I prefer to let Mr. Schulz answer for AI.

Hal, I nominate another phrase as "over the top" and better discarded: "9/11 changed everything."

[von]

No: One blows oneself up for God.

(I should add, lest I be misunderstood, that my personal belief is that most blow themselves up for reasons having more to do with their current mental state than any religious belief. But "God" is the given reason.)

[Barry]

Wow. Looks like the counter-counter-attack of the right is in full swing.

I got to remember these things - if I say 'that man robbed me!', and it turned out that he larcenied me, or burglarized me, I'd hate to have some of these people on the jury when I'm sued for slander. I could lose all of my money - like in the movie 'Under the Tuscan Sun', which starts out with a women losing her ancestral home to her adulterous husband.

[felixrayman]

No: One blows oneself up for God.

Care to explain the most prolific suicide bombers, then? The Tamil Tigers? As cited above:

The leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more than Hamas (54) or Islamic Jihad (27). Even among Muslims, secular groups like the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Al Aksa Martyr Brigades account for more than a third of suicide attacks.

How does that support your argument that it is religion rather than something else motivating suicide bombers?

[liberal japonicus]

Internment camp.

Errr, as much as I think that the internment of Japanese Americans was a great stain on the honor of the US, I don't think any Japanese issei or Japanese American citizens were waterboarded, or strung up from ceilings while receiving multiple strikes to the knee, or were smeared with menstrual blood in an attempt to get information about the Emperor's war plans. I don't think you are helping your case here, von.

[M. Scott Eiland]

Internment camp.

Of course, that presents historical problems, in that the last time this country maintained areas that it called "internment camps," the occupants were for the most part law-abiding American citizens and permanent resident aliens, rather than enemies captured on the battlefield. Still, it's far closer to the truth than "gulag," for those interested in honest use of the language.

[DaveL]

Y'wanna know what I really think? I think hell hath no fury like an expert who sees their particular technical jargon transformed into mere vernacular.

Bingo. This doesn't explain most of the response, but I think it explains Applebaum precisely.

[DaveL]

I think that once a person reaches a threshold point, your theory may very well be true. That the straw that breaks the entropy of the camel's back may on occasion be more in the form of a brick bat. But if a person is not at that threshold point, I think its counter productive. And since 99% of the time, 99% of the people aren't at threshold points, the tactic is overall unsuccessful. Interestingly, another part of human nature makes us susceptable to remembering sucess and dismissing all failure, so I can see where if the brick bat worked for people once or twice, they'd latch on to that as the best method. Or maybe I'm deluded. But maybe I'm just getting too meta.

I think that most people, most of the time, don't have any settled opinions at all about all sorts of things. With regard to Guantanamo in particular, I think the target audience consists of people who were scared and angry after 9/11, who were generally supportive of "doing something" to make us safer, and who supported Bush because he was "doing something" without looking too closely into a lot of the details of what "something" consisted of. So I think the case for inflammatory rhetoric is that you're trying to break through a general sense of "he's doing his best to protect us" with specific instances of "he's running completely amok." Which is not necessarily to say that using "gulag" will achieve that, but only that there's a non-crazy case to be made for it.

[double-plus-ungood]

Von, what is your opinion on Camp XRay? Good? Or not so much?

[felixrayman]

Does internment camp imply that the detainees are often interrogated, abused, tortured, held incommunicado, in secret, etc? I don't believe so.

In fact, the dictionary defines the term as, "camp for political prisoners or prisoners of war", by which one could mean the Soviet gulag, or the US WW2 camps where Americans detained their own citizens, or also a POW camp that treated all detainees completely humanely at all times. I don't think the term is helpful - remember here, by at least one dictionary definition, Gitmo does meet the definition for gulag. I thought we wanted to clarify terms, not obscure them further.

[Anderson]

Indeed, Mr. Schultz merely stated that the abuses at Guantanamo "are similar at least in character if not in size to what happened in the gulag and in many other prison systems in world history," did he not?

But, Von, this happens to be true. People are grabbed based on actual or fictitious guilt (often fingered by others with dubious motives), tossed into detention, and kept there for YEARS without due process, and mistreated to some degree once they're there. Call it the gulag, call it nacht und nebel, call it internment, whatever ... it's un-American, it's tyrannical, it's wicked, it's wrong. And it's going on right now, courtesy of George W. Bush, commander-in-chief.

Surely you have no problem with the truth, Von?

"Internment camp." Catchy. Rich with history. I like it!

[2shoes]

One does not blow oneself up for liberty or prosperity. One fights and dies for those things, perhaps, but one does not kill indiscriminately.

Unless you are the 8th Air Force or RAF, and your target is Dresden. Or some such.

[Neolith]

Well, sure, I'm not saying the case is crazy. I just think its for the most part wrong. I don't agree with your analysis of human nature, it doesn't jibe with my experiences, and therefore I disagree with the conclusions you reach, but I don't think you or anyone is insane for holding them.

But we do agree on many things. For example, I agree with your concept of a people who isn't the best informed scared and angry and appreciative of someone with perceived moral clarity striding forth and whoopin' butt. I also agree that they need to see specific instances of this acceptance running amok. The exact point I start to disagree is when you take those specific instances, and put some heat on them. You start with uncomfortable facts and turn them into dismissable hype. And I think that's wrong.

[Barry]

"Bingo. This doesn't explain most of the response, but I think it explains Applebaum precisely."

Posted by: DaveL
I browsed some of Applebaums's column in Slate (2000-2002), and it sounds right. She's not a right-winger, so the idea that she's defending the administration seems unlikely. If somebody knows more about her recent behavior, of course, that'd be more relevant.

[M. Scott Eiland]

Errr, as much as I think that the internment of Japanese Americans was a great stain on the honor of the US, I don't think any Japanese issei or Japanese American citizens were waterboarded, or strung up from ceilings while receiving multiple strikes to the knee, or were smeared with menstrual blood in an attempt to get information about the Emperor's war plans. I don't think you are helping your case here, von.

Yeah--they might as well have been at Club Med.

[sarcasm]

[double-plus-ungood]

Yeah--they might as well have been at Club Med.

[sarcasm]

That was definitely not warranted, as LJ was emphatically not saying that it was Club Med.

[radish]

von, I hate to break this to you, but AI's credibility with potential suicide bombers is even less than it's credibility with you. The audience you're worried about doesn't get its news from AI. When it's your family and friends disappearing and getting shot at roadblocks you don't need permission from a highbrow human rights organization to get pissed off.

Internment camps it is then... Let's agree that the US government runs a network of internment camps and see where that takes us.

Slarti, the whole point is to mitigate that risk by adopting a shared term. If you don't mind a bit of cussing, I suggest you read this Rude Pundit post -- it's got quite the little nugget of wisdom about primate politics in it...

[dutchmarbel]

concentration camp, a detention site outside the normal prison system created for military or political purposes to confine, terrorize, and, in some cases, kill civilians. The term was first used to describe prison camps used by the Spanish military during the Cuban insurrection (1868–78), those created by America in the Philippines (1898–1901), and, most widely, to refer to British camps built during the South African War (Boer War) to confine Afrikaners in the Transvaal and Cape Colony (1899—1902). The term soon took on much darker meanings. In the USSR, the Gulag elaborated on the concept beginning as early as 1920. After 1928, millions of opponents of Soviet collectivization as well as common criminals were imprisoned under extremely harsh conditions and many died.

[double-plus-ungood]

Ah, good, "concentration camp" it is then. It's good to be syntactically precise. As an A.I. member, I will urge them to use this term in the futuure when referring to Camp XRay.

[von]

Obviously, given that I oppose what's going on at Guantanamo, I have no problem with the pejorative connotations of internment camp. I would much prefer to call Gitmo et al. a POW Facility but, given that the Bush Administration has expressly found that it's inhabitants are not POWs, that, too, is inaccurate

[von]

"It's good to be syntactically precise."

Yes, it is. It leads to clear thinking, limits stupidity, and avoids slander.

[M. Scott Eiland]

That was definitely not warranted, as LJ was emphatically not saying that it was Club Med.

Considering the examples he gave--as opposed to the well-documented hardships of 110,000 loyal Japanese-Americans at the hands of FDR and Earl Warren--you're damned right it was warranted.

[double-plus-ungood]

Considering the examples he gave--as opposed to the well-documented hardships of 110,000 loyal Japanese-Americans at the hands of FDR and Earl Warren--you're damned right it was warranted.

No, it wasn't. It wasn't what LJ said, and it contributed nothing to the conversation.

[von]

Incidentally, DM and D-P-U-G, what's your basis for claiming that we set up Camp X-Ray "to confine, terrorize, and, in some cases, kill civilians" (emphasis mine)?

[Avedon]

AI's spokesman was dragged onto the talk shows and allowed to enumerate the circumstances in our illegal prisons that had caused them to use the word. On TV. In public. In front of people who may not have heard it before.

All because they used that word

A word which is not nearly as innacurate as y'all are making out.

Having the Bush administration and their apologists bleating about the word doesn't make them look good. And it doesn't really hurt AI, because most of the people who are attacking them didn't pay any attention to AI anyway. They didn't pay any attention to decades of AI criticism of Saddam - until it suddenly became useful to use AI data to launch their invasion of Iraq.

I mean, seriously, did anyone decide that holding people illegally in intolerable conditions, sometimes torturing and even killing them, was OK because AI said "gulag"?

Debate it all you want, but we are doing a terrible thing, and it deserves terrible words.

[Anderson]

Hey, problem solved!

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Wednesday left open the possibility that the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could be shut down following mounting criticism from former President Carter and others.

"We're exploring all alternatives as to how best to do the main objective, which is to protect America," Bush said when asked in an interview with Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto if he would close the detention center.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, said he did not know of anyone in the administration who was considering closing Guantanamo. He defended the military's operation of the camp.

Of course, the solution is probably to send the Gitmo detainees to Egypt, Uzbekistan, and similar allies, there to be treated even worse. Though still not in "gulags," of course.

(N.b. that Bush also just backed down off private accounts, which--who knew?--aren't essential to trust-fund solvency. Has someone changed Bush's meds lately? Calling Dr. Morell ...)

[DaveL]

The exact point I start to disagree is when you take those specific instances, and put some heat on them. You start with uncomfortable facts and turn them into dismissable hype. And I think that's wrong.

You lost me here. Can you clarify where you think I'm going wrong?

[double-plus-ungood]

(1) Where did I say that?

(2) Why was Camp X-Ray set up in Cuba, Von?

[Bruce Baugh]

This is a post written in something perilously close to despair.

I give up.

I have spent the last three years hoping that my country would return to sane leadership. I no longer see how that's possible. We won't have verifiable elections, and the precise irregularities that lead observers to examine for systematic fraud in other countries go unaddressed here - it's ignored or dismissed as conspiracy-mongering. The Democratic Party apparently can't mount an effective opposition to the president's policies of war, torture, economic suicide, and class war, and the Republican Party won't. There are no mass resignations from the party, no groups of well-respected authorities within it persistently pressing their case, no organization to block the president's actions in these or other areas. Were an effective opposition to emerge, it wouldn't be honestly reported on.

And the people who are really in a position to do something about it seem mostly interested in arguing about the relevance of single-sentence metaphors.

My country died sometime in the last few years. Possibly 12/12/2000, as others have suggested. I do not, right now, see any hope for the restoration of genuine rule of law or representative government - not enough people want it, not enough to do anything about it, not rather than get distracted by lexical shinies.

I did my part in the last election, and will do so again on specific issues, sustained campaigns, and elections, because my conscience would bother me if I didn't. But I don't expect it to work. It'll take something catastrophic, and I can't rightly imagine what that would be.

I very sincerely hope that in 2-4 years I can look back and see this as somewhere near the bottom of a dark tide that recedes between now and then.

[double-plus-ungood]

Sorry, that last post was directed at Von's "Incidentally, DM and D-P-U-G, what's your basis for claiming that we set up Camp X-Ray "to confine, terrorize, and, in some cases, kill civilians" (emphasis mine)?"

[M. Scott Eiland]

No, it wasn't. It wasn't what LJ said, and it contributed nothing to the conversation.

Your opinion is noted.

[Anderson]

Your opinion is noted.

Can I get a bumper sticker that says that?

[double-plus-ungood]

Your opinion is noted.

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

[sidereal]

Your notation is noted.

See, we can all play the snide, dismissive game.

[liberal japonicus]

I think it explains Applebaum precisely

especially when Applebaum has noted (this is from the Crooked Timber thread)

“In retrospect, this is one of the most unique aspects of the Soviet camp system: its inmates arrived, most of the time, via a legal system, if not always the ordinary judicial system. No one tried and sentenced the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe, but the vast majority of inmates in Soviet camps had been interrogated (however cursorily), tried (however farcically), and found guilty (even if it took less than a minute). Undoubtedly, the conviction that they were acting within the law was part of what motivated those working within the security services, as well as the guards and administrators who later controlled the prisoners’ lives in the camps.” Gulag: A History, Anne Applebaum, p. 122)

I personally think that Applebaum is wrong in this, there were a promulgation of laws by the Nazis to carefully classify conquered territories as parts of the Reich, and then laws to specifically declare Jews as stateless people, who were then subject to no laws (I think it is Hilberg who points out that there are cases of Jews trying to get arrested because as prisoners, they had a certain level of guaranteed rights above those of being a Jew), but the denial of contact (noted to be an effective way of breaking down prisoners by the commandant of Gitmo), the star-chamber quality of the tribunals, the isolation, the torture, the systematic nature (given that we have multiple locations rather than just a few bad apples in one prison), the bureaucratic nature (how, exactly, does someone prove that they are innocent in these situations?) suggests that gulag of our times is pretty close to the mark.

While this is potentially a Godwin violation, I would note that one of the modern strengths that we have found is that we have a much easier time finding empathy within ourselves for the Jews. One of the weaknesses is that we can't yet see ourselves as Germans.

As a Japanese-American, it would be very tempting for me to cheer von and say that the internment as equally a vile notion as what is going on in Gitmo, but, in exercise, it was not, as some tried to mitigate the effects of the internment. Of course, I know that von followed and supported Eric Muller's takedown of Malkin's screed against Japanese-Americans. For someone who is arguing for accuracy in usage, he's either gotten himself very confused, or he is being disingenuous here.

And Scott, I appreciate the fact that you regard the internment as a terrible injustice. I'd suggest you pop over to Muller's blog and add your conservative voice to counter those who persistently suggest that the internment was a blessing for the Japanese-Americans, or even consider posting your views on some of the conservative blogs you frequent. If you did post such opinions and I missed them, please let me know some links so I can cite you.

[Anderson]

One more question, & then I'm gone for the night:

Where, exactly, is Khalid Sheikh Muhammed?

If I'm his son or daughter, how do I get in touch with him?

Thank goodness he's not in a "gulag," is all I can say.

(Remember, folks, some of the people in the gulags were guilty, as doubtless are some of the Gitmo prisoners. Guilt or innocence is not the point. The rule of law or tyranny is the point.)

[double-plus-ungood]

Regarding the closing of Camp XRay -- it's not a new concept, as they've been working on it for a while:

Administration officials are preparing long-range plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the United States or other countries, according to intelligence, defense, and diplomatic officials.

The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people in military and CIA custody whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The outcome of the review, which involves the State Department as well, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counterterrorism operations.

"We've been operating in the moment because that's what has been required," said a senior administration official involved in the discussions, who added that the current detention system has strained relations between the United States and other countries. "Now we can take a breath. We have the ability and need to look at long-term solutions."

I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether removal of due process and indefinite detention without trial (due to insufficient evidence!) on US soil is a good thing or not.

[Gary Farber]

"Internment camp."

This has usually been used to refer to camps wherein probably innocent civilians, whom are nonetheless susepected of possible enemy affiliation or activity, are kept. Just noting. It doesn't seem to quite reflect rounding up foreign suspects. Historically.

[double-plus-ungood]

I think we've decided on "concentration camp," Gary. I was hoping for Ministry of Love, but....

[M. Scott Eiland]

And Scott, I appreciate the fact that you regard the internment as a terrible injustice. I'd suggest you pop over to Muller's blog and add your conservative voice to counter those who persistently suggest that the internment was a blessing for the Japanese-Americans, or even consider posting your views on some of the conservative blogs you frequent. If you did post such opinions and I missed them, please let me know some links so I can cite you.

My views on Japanese-American internment are a matter of record (though only in comments sections in blogs--it might be hard for me to find any readily available examples), and I wasn't particularly impressed with what I heard of Malkin's premises in her book, though I found the "self-hating Asian" rhetoric being thrown her way to be deplorable. I have to ask--do you have any immediate family who were in the camps to whom you have spoken to about the Guantanamo situation? Would they consider their own plight to be closer to the gulag than that suffered by the prisoners at Gitmo? I'd be interested in what they had to say.

As a side note, if Japanese-Americans had been evacuated with ample protection for their property rights (freezing mortgages and compensating the internees for damage done to their property while they were away, as examples), and detained in a location that was not so akin to a prison camp, perhaps it would have been defensible, as a protection against potential violence by angry (and, sad to say, bigoted) neighbors. It still would have been a harsh infringement on the liberties of loyal Americans, but it would have at least been a sign that the government was trying not to cause them any more hardship than was deemed necessary in the face of a total war. Sadly, the effort was not made.

[crionna]

But I think I've pieced together how not to do it. Again, I may be wrong.

You're not wrong.

[Gary Farber]

I persist in thinking that arguments about our present system's resemblence to the Soviet Union's gulag, which it clearly mostly doesn't resemble, is an awful distraction from discussing its actual evil, and that people who want to argue in defense of "gulag" are, in fact, choosing to distract attention away from the actual evil, and that that is very unhelpful. But, again, that's me. I'd rather address what policy should be about prisoners and such, and what the hell is this "war" we are fighting, and the like, rather than arguing who knows how much about Soviet history. But I can't pick anyone's argument but mine own.

[Gary Farber]

"I think we've decided on 'concentration camp,'"

For the present US system? That would seem to be extremely inaccurate, unless we're engaging in mass round ups of American Moslems.

Frankly, there are so many angry words and incoherent arguments swirling around these threads that I'm presently having trouble trying to keep track of who is making what accusation and who is defending what statement. That might be solely my own problem, and you guys are all coherently making good cases for whatever, but, well, I'm still unclear who is making what point and why. Can we all agree that the present US prisoner/intelligence system sucks and needs to be improved?

[otto]

Von: “Mr. Schultz admitted that Guantanamo was not a gulag, correct?”

Not correct. He said “gulag” “is not an exact or a literal analogy.” This does not equal “not a gulag” nor does it support a concession that the use of the term was “wildly inaccurate” as you suggested.

-“SCHULZ: I've told you the ways in which I think that there are analogies between the Soviet prison system and the United States.”

Von: “Indeed, Mr. Schultz merely stated that the abuses at Guantanamo "are similar at least in character if not in size to what happened in the gulag and in many other prison systems in world history," did he not?”

So had he mentioned all the rest by name or chosen the title of another prison system, we would not be having this discussion?

Von: “Please, continue quoting Mr. Schultz appearance on FNS; be sure to include the bit where he suggests that Amnesty used the word "gulag" as a publicity stunt.”

I will:

“SCHULZ: Chris, I don't think I'd be on this station, on this program today with you if Amnesty hadn't said what it said and President Bush and his colleagues haven't responded as they did. If I had come to you two weeks ago and said, "Chris, I'd like to go on Fox with you just to talk about U.S. detention policies at Guantanamo and elsewhere," I suspect you wouldn't have given me an invitation.”

This is your proof that “gulag” was a “publicity stunt”? AI used “gulag” for the sole purpose of getting on Fox News? This was not a comment on the behavior of Fox News? Schulz’s statement was a comment about the reaction from the right, not about any AI motives for using “gulag.” This gets back to the “Amnesty did this to itself” argument you offered earlier that functions as a way to lay the blame at the feet of AI for this whole flap.

Von: “One does not blow oneself up for liberty or prosperity. One fights and dies for those things, perhaps, but one does not kill indiscriminately. No: One blows oneself up for God.”

While I agree that if everyone thought that this earth was all there is that we’d see a whole lot fewer fundamentalists (on all sides) who were willing to commit suicide. However, I suggest that the difference between “blow oneself up” and “fight and die” is a very slight difference of degree (e.g. check out the actions of those who earned Congressional Medals of Honor posthumously). Furthermore, “liberty and prosperity” and “God” are a whole lot closer than you indicate. Indeed, much of the debate on this topic has focused on the American “gods” of “Freedom” and “Democracy” that exhibit the same hallmarks as religious belief. “One does not kill indiscriminately” for liberty or prosperity? Your assessment here on what motivates people to violence and their behavior while committing it is ill-informed.

[Gary Farber]

Once again: couldn't we all get behind opposing unconstitutional and nasty behavior at Gitmo and other U.S. rendition and prisoner policies, as our focus, rather than arguing pointlessly over the resemblance to the Soviet system? Which actually matters more? Which might actually help real people first?

[Jesurgislac]

M. Scott: the occupants were for the most part law-abiding American citizens and permanent resident aliens, rather than enemies captured on the battlefield.

Are you asserting that the occupants of Guantanamo Bay are for the most part enemies captured on the battlefield, M. Scott? What evidence do you base this assertion on? Please cite.

[liberal japonicus]

d+ug
Not so fast, we haven't gotten agreement from von and Scott who want to go with "internment camp". We've already gotten the argument that conditions are an improvement over where they were, (those Gitmo folks are putting on weight, right?), but soon, we should get the suggestion that there is actually no barbed wire around the camps and that the internees are free to come and go as they please, and that they were put in the camps to protect them from mob violence. I wonder if they will be eligible for the draft if it is instituted. And god forbid they demand an apology 40 years down the road.

Scott, if you could give me any kind of pointer, I would be happy to do the searching through the comments. I'm a pretty devoted lurker and was reading everything I could when Malkin's book came out, and I don't recall anything from you, but that's not saying that there's not anything. If you could give me a blog where you have expressed these ideas, I would appreciate it.

I have to ask--do you have any immediate family who were in the camps to whom you have spoken to about the Guantanamo situation? Would they consider their own plight to be closer to the gulag than that suffered by the prisoners at Gitmo? I'd be interested in what they had to say.

Ahh, so a necessary component of being concerned about Gitmo is having actual family members incarcerated. So noted. (gee, that does work pretty well) Perhaps I should canvass those I know (my folks are from Hawaii, so they were not interned and it would be the parents of the people I know rather than those people directly) and ask them if they would rather have been in Gitmo than in Manzanar. Based on my own cursory readings, my answer is pretty clear.

Looking forward to those cites.

[sidereal]

Gary, my understanding of the arguments of von's detractors (in this context only, of course), including myself, is exactly that. That we're sick of seeing the AI report as an excuse to bash AI or get defensively self-righteous rather than excuse to, you know, help real people. I wade into this topic with the admittedly vain hope that this is the last such thread I'll have to read.

[otto]

Although some have commented that this debate over the term “gulag” is silly (and to some degree I concur), it is important in the sense that what words one uses controls what one thinks of the objects attached to those words (e.g. Compare “the government of Afghanistan” to “the Taliban Regime” – what are the implications, the value judgments, made by these two labels, how would the application of either one affect one’s perception of that nation before the US invasion?). The “gulag” flap is very much a debate about power and who gets to define the terms, thereby influencing public thought and discourse. I suspect that the reaction from the Administration and some folks on the right against AI is motivated more by a perception that AI is a usurper, an institution who stepped outside its place in the power structure and challenged authority, than a quibble over “gulag” or “internment camp” or any other particular handle. The attack on AI by the Administration is caused by the desire to control public opinion, as one sees reflected in the argument of Applebaum: “they will have to admire what they see on the other side.”

[felixrayman]

Concentration camp is certainly closer than internment camp. Von's nitpick about the term "civilians" doesn't seem to apply, the dictionary defines the term as, "A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions".

The only problem, of course, is that the term also would apply to the Soviet gulag (as would internment camp), so if the idea is to make the differences between the US military's prison system for "detainees" and the Soviet gulag obvious, we really haven't clarified anything yet.

couldn't we all get behind opposing unconstitutional and nasty behavior at Gitmo and other U.S. rendition and prisoner policies, as our focus, rather than arguing pointlessly over the resemblance to the Soviet system?

Is this the same Gary Farber who, in one of the last few posts on this very topic, objected vociferously to the use of the word "gulag" and went on about it at length? Or are there two Gary Farbers posting here? Or something else that would explain the inconsistency? Perhaps I am misremembering?

[Gary Farber]

I suggest the excluded middle, Otto, which is that it isn't accurate to give the Admin a pass, while also suggesting that debating the use of the word "gulag" still is a distraction. Myself, I have a lot of bad words in mind regarding our present system that clearly allows for torture and horror and other stuff we wish to disallow.

[Gary Farber]

"Is this the same Gary Farber who, in one of the last few posts on this very topic, objected vociferously to the use of the word "gulag" and went on about it at length? Or are there two Gary Farbers posting here? Or something else that would explain the inconsistency? Perhaps I am misremembering?"

I don't seem to have much tendency towards multiple personality disorder, so, please do say what you find inconsistent or whatever.

[M. Scott Eiland]

Scott, if you could give me any kind of pointer, I would be happy to do the searching through the comments.

I have to admit--I was curious myself, so I did some Googling when I should have been involved in more productive pursuits and found this and this. Those were the best ones I could find.

[M. Scott Eiland]

Ahh, so a necessary component of being concerned about Gitmo is having actual family members incarcerated.

Not at all--you were the one who made the implied comparison between Manzanar, et al, and Gitmo--I was merely suggesting that the experiences of someone who had actually been in the former might be able to pass on useful insights. I recall once--in a discussion provoked by the use of the word "slavery" to describe life behind the Iron Curtain that many of those who had actually lived under the systems there would disagree with the description (of course, there were many who lived under those conditions who *did* agree with that description, so that ended up as a draw). Since I have no family or close friends who are Japanese-American, I don't have that kind of resource regarding life in the camps, and was interested in any such information you could pass on based on your own resources.

[crionna]

Can we all agree that the present US prisoner/intelligence system sucks and needs to be improved?

Unfortunately I don't think we can do that Gary. Some will point to how well fed etc. etc. the prisoners are and say that it doesn't suck. Others will call it evil and accuse anyone who doesn't think that way of being evil too.

So, when you ask "which is worse, the camps or what they're called?" who can tell? I mean, while AI may have indeed raised consciousness of the issue, the ensuing storm seems to be growing to a point where people start to dig in their heels and not support changes, nor listen to facts.

That, I think is Neolith's point. I also see this thread as an interesting corollary to wonderment of many that there are so few moderate or conservative commenters here at OW. And, indeed, why Moe no longer graces these pixels.

Ahh, so a necessary component of being concerned about Gitmo is having actual family members incarcerated. So noted.

Ya know LJ, I think he asked an honest question that you, out of anyone here, might actually have an answer to.

Before I wrote that sentence though, I thought to write in snideness that it sure was important to you to identify where you lived as a way of preempting any thoughts about your not caring about NK in an earlier thread, but now take offense to a question that may offer you the opportunity to offer information based on where you live. Then I thought that if I'm gonna fight with you, then like Bruce I have lost hope, only in OW.

Bye y'all.

[dmbeaster]

Neolith:

So why can't we be critical of our "gulags", but also critical of people and groups who pour gasoline on the issue, making the fire burn hotter and longer?

Somehow I seriously doubt that misuse of the term "gulag" has anything to do with making the Bush abuses worse by "making the fire burn hotter and longer." The fire will burn hotter because of the evil of the perpetrators and the indifference of those who might check the abuses -- not because of bad rhetoric from the critics.

Criticize the "gulag" misuse all you want (it merits criticism just like misuse of "holocaust" or "genocide"), but its still relatively trivial in relation to the abuses.

Frankly, I think its much better policy to be a little forgiving for those who are overheated in reacting to outrage, than to tut-tut for the benefit of the evildoers because their bad behavior has been criticized too harshly.

[Gary Farber]

"Unfortunately I don't think we can do that Gary."

Patience, young padawan. Use the force. Okay, just patience.

[Gary Farber]

"Frankly, I think its much better policy to be a little forgiving for those who are overheated in reacting to outrage, than to tut-tut for the benefit of the evildoers because their bad behavior has been criticized too harshly."

Frankly, I think everyone could be a little forgiving for the sake of engaging in reasonable discussion. But, as always, that's me. (And there's always a good case to be made for pounding the evils we perceive elsewhere; all I can say that is left is that we either choose to leave room for discussion or not.)

[felixrayman]

I don't seem to have much tendency towards multiple personality disorder, so, please do say what you find inconsistent or whatever.

On other threads, for example, the Did Newsweek Make a Mistake? thread, you engaged, repeatedly and at great length, in a behavior (arguing over the use of the term "gulag") that you are now criticizing other people for. I believe you in fact initiated that argument, and I believe you in fact disrupted a discussion of exactly what you claim to now want to discuss to initiate that argument. Which would lead to my confusion over whether there were two Gary Farbers, or perhaps a Gary Farber and an anti-Gary Farber.

Disturbing.

[Tacitus]

Ignorance of Anne Applebaum
+
Ordinary lefty hysteria
+
Ungenerous attacks on von
+
Ignorance of the (actual) gulag
=
This thread.

As an aside for felix, while I appreciate that you can identify the forms of common fallacies, it doesn't follow that statements adhering to those forms are actually false. Good luck arguing that.

[Gary Farber]

"felixrayman"

We seem to have noticed before that we disagree. Myself, I've been generally happy to leave it at that, given that, I, in fact, agree with you about much. But since it appears you don't want to leave it at that, I shall just sigh and try to live with your sense of my evilness, or whatever. Enjoy.

[Francis / Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse]

Irrelevant comment
+
mischaracterization of opponents' comments
+
sneering tone
=
standard Tacitus comment, again replicated.

the real question is

Whether he really thinks so highly of himself, or is he just threadjacking?

Magic 8-Ball sez: answer unclear; ask again later.

[Catsy]

Magic 8-Ball sez: answer unclear; ask again later.

Bwahahahaha.

Excuse me for a moment. Funniest comment in a long time, made funnier by virtue of being, well, spot-on.

[felixrayman]

As an aside for felix, while I appreciate that you can identify the forms of common fallacies, it doesn't follow that statements adhering to those forms are actually false. Good luck arguing that.

I didn't. I argued about your specific statement. There were only two comments before yours, neither of which made specific claims about the Soviet gulags to which Applebaum's expert knowledge of Soviet gulags would apply. You then proceeded with your argument that Applebaum should be disagreed with at our peril. Textbook example of the form, my foul-tempered fallacy-scattering posting rules-violating little buddy.

[felixrayman]

We seem to have noticed before that we disagree. Myself, I've been generally happy to leave it at that, given that, I, in fact, agree with you about much. But since it appears you don't want to leave it at that, I shall just sigh and try to live with your sense of my evilness, or whatever

Oh sure we disagree, that's nothing new. But you seem to even disagree with yourself. That's what so interesting, in a non-evil but generally amusing sort of way.