Amnesty International

Irrelevant?

I know you can google it, but to be fair, guess who said the following first before Googling it:

I draw the line at Amnesty's use of the word "gulag" to describe these policies, as well as the implication that the United States has somehow become the modern equivalent of Stalin's Soviet Union. Guantanamo Bay was a flawed response to an unprecedented situation: A war in which the enemy were not soldiers, but stateless terrorists. Early abuses there have been investigated and discussed by the FBI, the press and, to a still limited extent, the military. There is evidence that the situation is changing.

The Soviet gulag, by contrast, was a massive forced labor complex consisting of thousands of concentration camps and hundreds of exile villages. More than 18 million prisoners, and some 6 million exiles pass through the system during Stalin's lifetime, although their fate was never publicly acknowledged during his lifetime, and only limited information was ever published by Soviet authorities after his death. Soviet camps and political prisons were in existence from the time of the revolution to the time of Gorbachev, more than eighty years. They were a major part of the Soviet economy, and helped create the atmosphere of generalized terror and fear of state authorities which persists in Russia today.

Their true modern equivalent is not Guantanamo Bay, but the prisons of Cuba, where Amnesty itself says a new generation of prisoners of conscience reside; or the labor camps of North Korea, which were set up on Stalinist lines; or China's laogai , the true size of which isn't even known; or, until recently, the prisons of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Hint it is not Dick Chenney, George W Bush or Don Rumsfeld.  And they are correct!

11,684 views 40 replies
Reply #1 Top
Not really a surprise here. Amnesty International will say anything that will help promote their cause; especially from the left. Also, like your defintion of a "gulag". Hilter was a monster, however, Stalin was worst. Your numbers give a good reading of what life was like in Russia (Soviet Union) during the time before WW II. All in total Stalin up until his death sent to gulags, or elimated over 36,000,000 people during his time as the Soviet leader, and before. Guantanamo Bay is, nor will ever be choose to Stalin's, and Hilter's death camps. For someone to even compare Guantanamo to these camps is someone who is not well read in world history, or affairs. Infact they are only showing their public their inablitlily to be realistic about their thinking, and their education.

Pam
Reply #2 Top
The use of the word 'gulag' is a ludicrous exaggeration. That's not to say, however, that there are aren't areas of real concern with the goings on at Guantanamo Bay: "a flawed response to an unprecedented situation" is probably a fairer assessment.

It's a real shame, because AI has done a lot of good work over 40 years that should be applauded by moderates and people of good will on all sides. Including working for people who found themselves locked away in the real gulags.

In the sound-bite world in which we now live, people often strive for attention with reckless and sensational claims, and that seems to be the case here. Quote from Kate Gilmore, Amnesty's deputy secretary general: "We're getting more airing of our message than we would have otherwise." Very foolish if you ask me.

I would have expected better of AI because I don't see it as part of an "anti-American 'leftist' conspiracy". But someone, somewhere has lost their way...
Reply #3 Top

Infact they are only showing their public their inablitlily to be realistic about their thinking, and their education.

I think it all comes down to the forgetting of history.  For most born today, WWII and the Soviet Gulags are foot notes in History books, if that.  The horror tha wa forced upon mankind at the discovery of both the concentration camps and Gulags  are being forgotten, so it is easy for many not born then to dismiss them as a bad stint at summer camp.  The shere magnitude of the horror, 6 million and 20 million respectively, cannot be comprehended by the human mind.

as a student of 20th century history (lived half, studied the other half), I use to think that mankind would never repeat the horrors of the middle part of the century as we would always remember.  Today, older and wiser, I see that I am sadly mistaken.

Reply #4 Top

Quote from Kate Gilmore, Amnesty's deputy secretary general: "We're getting more airing of our message than we would have otherwise." Very foolish if you ask me.

ON par with yelling fire in a crowded theater.  Sure you get noticed, but your incompetance risked many lives just for that 15 minutes of fame.

Reply #5 Top
Anybody want to guess what U.S. political part Amnesty International is a major donor to?
Reply #6 Top

Anybody want to guess what U.S. political part Amnesty International is a major donor to?

That gets you a bonus rating.  So I guess you know the author as well.

Reply #7 Top
Anybody want to guess what U.S. political party Amnesty International is a major donor to?


If Amnesty donates to a political party then it is breaking its own principle of being "independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion".

The Washington Times says, "William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year". Was this his own money? If so, where's the beef, he's also a private citizen. However, the sly implication is being made that Amnesty funds were donated. You need to be sure of this before saying that 'Amnesty' donated to the Democrats.
Reply #8 Top
let us try to remember amnesty international. has never stepped foot in gitmo.. they drew there conclusions from many sources, all leftist or the reports leaked by the terrorist themselves. a.i. is hardly what any rational person call "fair" anymore.
Reply #9 Top

The Washington Times says, "William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty USA, contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's campaign last year". Was this his own money? If so, where's the beef, he's also a private citizen.

It was his own money.  And therefore no laws or I guess rules were broken.  But since it is clear that he is not neutral in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, then it begs the question of his neutrality in this situation as well.

Something does not have to be illegal to be unethical.

Reply #10 Top

let us try to remember amnesty international. has never stepped foot in gitmo.. they drew there conclusions from many sources, all leftist or the reports leaked by the terrorist themselves. a.i. is hardly what any rational person call "fair" anymore.

When even parts of the American left are saying the same thing, you know they have strayed far off the reservation! (and I guess that was a hint to the source of the quote).

Reply #11 Top
It's a real shame, because AI has done a lot of good work over 40 years that should be applauded by moderates and people of good will on all sides. Including working for people who found themselves locked away in the real gulags.


I'm sure there are a lot of organizations who used to good for everybody. I bet the ACLU had a time where it was useful. It just shows how the hatred of the left can dismantle the credibility of an organization.

let us try to remember amnesty international. has never stepped foot in gitmo.. they drew there conclusions from many sources, all leftist or the reports leaked by the terrorist themselves. a.i. is hardly what any rational person call "fair" anymore.


That is one of the best points yet. Most of these "allegations" come from the prisoners themselves. Let's remember in the al qaeda handbook one of their "techniques" is to accuse their captors of abuse. The media fails to report this, except for Fox, but they are a part of the right wing conspiracy.

It was his own money. And therefore no laws or I guess rules were broken. But since it is clear that he is not neutral in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, then it begs the question of his neutrality in this situation as well.

Something does not have to be illegal to be unethical.


Exactly. I never claimed anything was done was against the law. However, if you are the head of an organization like this, you should be very careful of where your political contributions go. It's obvious he is a democratic supporter, and it shows in his organization.
Reply #12 Top

It just shows how the hatred of the left can dismantle the credibility of an organization.

That gets an insightful!  Very well put.

Reply #13 Top

What bugs me about this is, I do believe there are credible problems with Guantanamo Bay, and that AI was best positioned to address those problems to the US and international community. Those problems should not be overlooked, regardless of AI's overstatements. But because of AI's exaggerations, the objective information upon which their subjective analysis was based, will be overlooked because of the radical nature of the summation.

As a former longtime supporter of AI, their angle on this only further underscores how the left are disenfranchising their moderate elements. I can't support their conclusion because of its overreaching assertions.

Reply #14 Top

As a former longtime supporter of AI, their angle on this only further underscores how the left are disenfranchising their moderate elements. I can't support their conclusion because of its overreaching assertions.

Kind of like a defendant walking into a courtroom, looking at the defendant and calling him a scumbag.  NO one would beleive the defendant would get a fair trial after that.

Reply #15 Top
'Don't know for sure' about Guantanamo: Amnesty USA "

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite highly publicized charges of U.S. mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, the head of the Amnesty International USA said on Sunday the group doesn't "know for sure" that the military is running a "gulag." Executive Director William Schulz said Amnesty, often cited worldwide for documenting human rights abuses, also did not know whether Secretary Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved severe torture methods such as beatings and starvation. Schulz recently dubbed Rumsfeld an "apparent high-level architect of torture" in asserting he approved interrogation methods that violated international law. "It would be fascinating to find out. I have no idea," Schulz told "Fox News Sunday."Link


Director Schulz: Can you say "libel" and "slander"??? Or are unfounded accusations of torture and "running a gulag" merely your way of being "non partisan"?
Reply #16 Top

Director Schulz: Can you say "libel" and "slander"??? Or are unfounded accusations of torture and "running a gulag" merely your way of being "non partisan"?

But Your Honor, we are non-profit!  We do good (sometimes) and help the downtrodden (sometimes) so we should be immune from the normal laws of society!

Reply #17 Top
My, don't you all have your panties in a bunch?

I saw the original newscast in which the Amnesty spokeswoman referred to Guantanamo as a Gulag. The comment was made by Irene Khan, Secretary General. Her exact words are "Guantanamo has become the gulag of our time." (Link)

She did not say that Guantanamo is the modern equivalent of any of the Gulags of Stalin, Mao, or any other dictator. She did not say that the regime carried on there is in any way equivalent to that of those dictators, or any other dictators.

What she sid is "Guantanamo has become the gulag of our time." Which means that the same impulse toward total control is at work in the thinking behind the Guantanamo detention center as was apparent, in far more extreme forms, in the Gulags of Russia, China, and Iraq.

In that sense, and in that sense alone, I agree with her. Just like the Gulags, Guantanamo is a place of fictions, where fighters who were not soldiers are not held as prisoners but as detainees, where law does not apply but only the will of the State. That the will of this particular State is largely humane and that in the main prisoners there appear to be treated reasonably well, is beside the point.

The inherent tendency of every State is to dominate. In mainland America that will is curtailed and controlled by the Constitution, and the checks and balances of power instituted here. But in Guantanamo that will is made plainly manifest. And it was to this that Irene Khan was pointing, not to some childish and entirely untenable equivalence between Guantanamo and the prison camps of China and Russia.

In essence, you are arguing over something that was not said, and taking positions which have no basis in reality (because the event they 'debate' did not occur) but only in your own ignorance and prejudice.

But hey, this is JU. What's new?
Reply #18 Top
Pull your own panties out (and your head while your at it).

"Guantanamo has become the gulag of our time."


The word "Gulag" was specifically used to elicit a thought in the minds of the reader. She knew exactly what image she was trying to convey.

Your apologist statement would be like saying, "Me calling you Hitler wasn't to imply that you are a hate-filled, small minded, Jews killer, only that you have a funny looking mustache.
Reply #19 Top
Your apologist statement would be like saying, "Me calling you Hitler wasn't to imply that you are a hate-filled, small minded, Jews killer, only that you have a funny looking mustache.


Oh GOd I love this one ted,, stop yer killin me...
Reply #20 Top

My, don't you all have your panties in a bunch?

I saw the original newscast in which the Amnesty spokeswoman referred to Guantanamo as a Gulag. The comment was made by Irene Khan, Secretary General. Her exact words are "Guantanamo has become the gulag of our time." (Link)

She did not say that Guantanamo is the modern equivalent of any of the Gulags of Stalin, Mao, or any other dictator. She did not say that the regime carried on there is in any way equivalent to that of those dictators, or any other dictators.

my dont we have our panties in a bunch.  try reading the article before commenting.  i asked for the author of the quote.  do you have a guess?

I have commented on comments, but note my question still stands,

so please post on topic.

btw, if i called you a nazi of our time, would that be any less stinging?  qualifying an absolute evil with a lame time qualifier is just monkey shines.  and a feeble attempt at cyaing.

Reply #21 Top

The word "Gulag" was specifically used to elicit a thought in the minds of the reader. She knew exactly what image she was trying to convey.

Exactly!

Reply #22 Top

Oh GOd I love this one ted,, stop yer killin me...

Indubitably!

Reply #23 Top

Heh, Dr G, did you read Emperors response before replying to it? The answer quoted above was in the third sentence.

She made the (she?) statement about the Gulag of our time (which has been parrotted by AI or she parroted them).  But that was not who make the statement in the highlighted article.  It is not really a statement but part of a column written by a certain person who is not right wing at all.

Reply #24 Top
Your apologist statement would be like saying, "Me calling you Hitler wasn't to imply that you are a hate-filled, small minded, Jews killer, only that you have a funny looking mustache


In my opinion, Salvador Dali's mustache was a lot funnier looking.
Reply #25 Top

In my opinion, Salvador Dali's mustache was a lot funnier looking.

I like Groucho Marx's best.