Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Irrelevant?
Published on June 6, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

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!


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jun 07, 2005
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
on Jun 07, 2005
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...
on Jun 07, 2005

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.

on Jun 07, 2005

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.

on Jun 07, 2005
Anybody want to guess what U.S. political part Amnesty International is a major donor to?
on Jun 07, 2005

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.

on Jun 07, 2005
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.
on Jun 07, 2005
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.
on Jun 07, 2005

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.

on Jun 07, 2005

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).

on Jun 07, 2005
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.
on Jun 07, 2005

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

That gets an insightful!  Very well put.

on Jun 07, 2005

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.

on Jun 07, 2005

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.

on Jun 07, 2005
'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"?
3 Pages1 2 3