Just for the record, I wish that Amnesty International hadn't used the word "gulag" recently in criticizing the U.S.'s detention and extraordinary rendition practices. It's not a helpful comparison. It's not crucial to the good work the organization does publicizing the truth. And it's allowed apologists for torture to distract attention from the main issue.
A lot of liberal/left bloggers are busy now pointing out that most of the people making these points are apologists for the Bush administration. And so they are. Indeed, it is not hard to make fun of these raving fuckwits. But I am not a raving fuckwit (you have to imagine me saying this in a Nixon voice), and I hope that a quick perusal of my archives will establish that I'm not a supporter of the Bush administration. And yet I'm still pretty sure that using the word "gulag" was a mistake. It's not the kind of mistake you'd want to devote a new cycle to, or that you'd want to make the focus of all the coverage of this issue. But I do think it is a mistake worth briefly acknowledging before we return to our regularly scheduled horror at what America has become, and is becoming.
Posted by Chris at June 8, 2005 03:35 PMit's interesting you say this now. a week ago, i might have agreed with you. but as this story plays out, i think amnesty's point is getting more coverage because they used the term than it would if they had left it out. i mean, the very fact that bush now hints that he is open to the possibility of closing gitmo suggests that the amnesty report is having an impact.
and it helped that amnesty did not back down when the administration turned on them. i heard several amnesty reps being interviewed and i thought they did a very good job explaining that while gitmo was not the same as a gulag, there are some important traits in common (e.g. they exist outside the judicial system, detainees disappearing when they enter the system) that were specifically condemned by republican governments during the cold war.
Looking around at the amount of attention that Amnesty was able to generate, I have had a moment or two of doubt. But I still think the comparison is a very big stretch. I hope that in the long run you're right, and that this kind of stretching to publicize abuses doesn't end up backfiring.
Posted by: Chris at June 9, 2005 03:10 PMNoz writes: i mean, the very fact that bush now hints that he is open to the possibility of closing gitmo suggests that the amnesty report is having an impact.
Maybe Joe Biden finally got a little tit for tat, after voting to confirm Condi and to lock poor soldiers' families and other unfortunates into perpetual debt peonage via the bankruptcy bill.
(Don't ask me what it is about Joe Biden these days, I'm just generally pissed off about everything.)
Posted by: Paul at June 10, 2005 06:25 PM