I was at a lecture one time, and someone asked Anne Applebaum (author of the book, Gulag) if Guantanomo was comparable. She laughed at that person, and, if I remember correctly answered with something like, "Are you serious?...No."

To judge from the reactions I've heard with respect to Amnesty International and Gitmo, the Bush administration is much more concerned with AI's use of the word 'gulag' than it is with any abuses that might be taking place at Guantanamo. Maybe it's not a gulag, but there appears to be a problem down there. And the Bush administration doesn't seem to care very much.

So, which is the bigger problem? Abuses at Guantanamo or overheated language by Amnesty International?

Seconding Doug, perhaps we should be just as concerned that Bush dismisses the report's substance as "absurd" and suggests that its accusations were made by "people who hate America."

I'm disappointed by the analogy with Gulags too, mainly because it throws up more smoke than light. But I'm discouraged that the Bush administration seizes on these instances of overstatement or misstatement as occasions to scare people off from looking more closely or to dismiss the charges as always groundless and absurd simply because, as Bush put it this morning, "the United States is a country that promotes freedom around the world." Surely that's throwing up more smoke than light too.

Well after a good few days but ultimately looking stupid in the Newsweek episode, the WH has to pick a fight with someone other than the media to distract attention away from the neverending fustercluck that is Iraq. Enter AI, stage right.

Amnesty is not completely worthless. My daughter belongs to a high school chapter and they try to promote awareness of abuses like the use of child soldiers around the world.

But the head of AI ought to be fired pronto. The organization has lost a lot of credibility with its patently false and politicaly motivated charges; if this keeps up, AI will be indistinguishable from the UN.

How is saying that the head of AI should be fired immediately any different from AI's asking for the heads of Rumsfeld and Bush? Surely the President's denunciation of the AI report was as "politically motivated" as the charge itself.

It's fairly telling that the administration is spending a lot more energy being all offended at the choice of words, than actually disproving the allegations or fixing what's wrong. If we really did all the things that AI says we did (or even just a large subset of them), then I really, really just don't care whether they want to call Guantanamo Bay a 'gulag' or not -- especially since the use of that word appears to have been part of a rhetorical flourish, and in no way a literal comparison of particulars with the old Soviet prison system.

When AI spends about as much space on Gitmo's so-called abuses (you know, someone dropped a Koran on the floor, no cable tv, numerous cases of self-esteem being hurt, etc.) as on Nigeria and other countries that sentence victims of rape to death; buy and sell human slaves; force sexual mutilation on women to keep them chaste; etc, etc, etc., a rational person has to vomit this insanity back on them and tell them where they can stick their report. The US is right in dismissing them because they have completely compromised their credibility. It's too bad that the good work that AI may be doing in some countries is tainted by this. They should clean house.

Gosh, I wish my previous comment writer would spend as much time...you know...actually reading the report before he spoke about how AI spent no time talking about things like Nigeria. Here's their nigeria summary

"People continued to be sentenced to death by stoning for sexually-related offences; no executions were carried out in 2004. Violent attacks, some involving members of the security forces, were reported from the Niger Delta. Violence against women was widespread and gender-based discrimination both in law and in practice remained a serious concern. The authorities failed to conduct independent investigations into human rights abuses and to bring those responsible to justice. Critics of the government faced harassment and intimidation."

Ok, NoLonger, let's take a look...
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng
Hm... no mention of Korans, cable tv, or self-esteem there....

Maybe you meant the supplemental reports? E.g.,
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510612004
Are you really so morally incapacitated that you think that "cases of self-esteem being hurt" is y the best way to describe treatment like this:

"They were interrogating me every day and in the first three or four days giving just a little food, and giving punishment". He said he was forced to sit on his haunches for three or four hours at a time, even when he wanted to sleep.(16) He said: "It was a very bad place. Whenever I started to fall asleep, they would kick on my door and yell at me to wake up. When they were trying to get me to confess, they made me stand partway, with my knees bent, for one or two hours. Sometimes I couldn’t bear it anymore and I fell down, but they made me stand that way some more."

Yeah, that's the same as just being denied cable tv, isn't it?

So I fail to see where your ill-informed little screed goes any way at all towards showing that AI has "compromised their credibility", especially when (as with our truly morally incapacitated administration) all you are doing is whining about the comparison class of our atrocities -- instead of disputing the existence of the atrocities or attempting to alleviate them. "Hey, at least we're not quite as bad as the worst states in Africa!" is hardly a claim to motivate the world to follow our leadership towards a freer, more democratic future, is it?

All of them should be in The Hague awaiting trial, from Bush on down to Lyndie.

All of them.

Funny. I couldn't find where Amnesty International called for the arrest of any US official. The closest thing I found was

If the US government continues to shirk its responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior US officials involved in the torture scandal. And if those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them.

Calling for an investigation is considerably different for calling for arrest. And even that only if the US fails to conduct an independent investigation of torture allegations.

By interpreting Amnesty's statement as a "call for arrest," aren't you yourself acknowledging that US officials are indeed guilty of actions that would be regarded as war crimes under international law? That seems rather more outrageous than what Amnesty said.

tgibbs--You can see the AI call for arrests here, about midway through the page, beginning with the words "Foreign governments."

Jonathon...I just read through the entire speech you linked to, and over and over again I found the speaker saying that there needed to be investigations. Repeatedly. No calls for arrests without proper investigations, only in cases where genuine wrongdoing is found.

And also...the phrase "foreign governments" is last used about 1/16 of the way down the page, certainly not 1/2 the way.

Balta,
"Foreign governments . . . have a legally binding obligation to exercise what is known as universal jurisdiction over people accused of grave breaches of the Conventions. Governments are required to investigate suspects and, if warranted, to prosecute them or to extradite them to a country that will." Universal jurisdiction has, historically, been used to arrest a-lot of people. Whether a country actually "arrests" or not depends on their own criminal justice system and whether they typicall arrest folks.

I'm sure that William F. Schulz is familiar with the history of the jurisdiction, and in citing it knew full well that the listed US officials would avoid traveling to any nation that took Shulz's call seriously, because arrests are typical when acting according to the jurisdiction. Calling on nations to act under universal jurisdiction is tantamount to asking these nations to act under the domestic criminal code of the particular jurisdiction if these persons were on their own wanted lists. So, Donald Rumsfeld now has the distinct pleasure of being on the wanted list in any country who accepts AI's call to act under universal jurisdiction. I'm guessing that many countries who gave Shulz's statement any weight will take him at his word that Rumsfeld et al. have seriously violated the Geneva Conventions and do their part to arrest.

Universal jurisdiction was first recognized, and made obligatory, by the Geneva Conventions, upon any country ratifying the Conventions. Convention I, Chapter IX, Art. 49--which provides part of the legal basis for universal jurisdiction--states: "Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts."

Since then, when it has been invoked, "arrests" have followed. For example, in the early 70s, during apartheid in S.Africa, Western nations and Britain would have been required to arrest officials from S.Africa had they ratified the Apartheid Convention, which had conferred universal jurisdiction through the UN Convention. Then, in the 80s, with the rise of crazies like Pinochet in Latin America, lots of people started to fear traveling--specifically because universal jurisdiction was being used to arrest folks while they were on foreign soil. In any event, Shulz knew what we has talking about, and he knew that "arrests" are, in most cases, part and parcel of acting pursuant to universal jurisdiction.

Absurd? Well, why does the US use rendition?

I think the people who hate America are sitting in Washington, not London

Because some of the US's most prestegious law firms tend to agree that something is very wrong in Gitmo.

The issue here is not the rote denial, but the increasing pressure to address the issue. Because this is all going to court and the Bushies are nervous.

Jonathon...I don't know if you realize it, but you just proved my point.

Tgibbs says that calling for investigations is very different from calling for arrests.

You respond with a speech, about which I point out that they werent' calling just for arrests, but they were calling for investigations followed by arrests if deserved.

You then post a blockquote saying

"Governments are required to investigate suspects and, if warranted, to prosecute them or to extradite them to a country that will."

In other words...they're calling for investigations and punishment of anyone found guilty.

Would you care to say that either of those possibilities is not necessary? That we shouldn't have an independent investigation into what has happened with detainees in U.S. custody? And that if we find people who have broken the law, they should not be punished to teh full extent of those laws?

tgibbs--You can see the AI call for arrests here, about midway through the page, beginning with the words "Foreign governments."

Are you talking about this?

"Foreign governments that are party to the Geneva Conventions and/or the Convention against Torture--and that is some 190 countries--nd countries that have national legislation that authorizes prosecution--and that is at least 125 countries--have a legally binding obligation to exercise what is known as universal jurisdiction over people accused of grave breaches of the Conventions. Governments are required to investigate suspects and, if warranted, to prosecute them or to extradite them to a country that will."

This isn't a call for anybody specifically to be arrested. Merely a general summary of the legal obligations of signatories to the Genevea Convention and the Convention Against Torture.

A call for investigation is not the same thing as a call for arrest. So that is only a call for the arrest of US officials if there is adequate evidence that US officials are guilty of torture. Are you asserting that this is in fact the case?

" It's particularly sad when the institution is Amnesty International, which for more than 40 years has been a tough, single-minded defender of political prisoners around the world and a scourge of left- and right-wing dictators alike."

Perhaps, it is the 'Merican people who have lost their bearings!

It is always difficult for a people to step back, allow reality to shine and re-evaluate.

I think AI was being way too diplomatic.

I mean, for a country that badgers their "enemies" over what turns out to be idealistic bs reveals a much more hypocritical, and therefore, criminal approach, than simply a straight dictator.

Buck Fush

Now that would be a social and ethical injustice: arresting Rumsfeld and company on the hearsay of political intriguists, the claims of militant detainees trained to fibbingly accuse their detainers of torturing them (article source can be provided at request), and despite reports from the Red Cross, which has been on-site at Guantanomo Bay from day one of these particular prisoners' arrival.

"despite reports from the Red Cross, which has been on-site at Guantanomo Bay from day one of these particular prisoners' arrival."

Oh gosh...sometimes they just make it too easy. Really. Fish in a barrel.

Yes, the Red Cross has been on site at Gitmo since almost the day we started moving prisoners there to keep them outside of U.S. laws. Wonderful. Thank Goodness the Red Cross is there.

Hmm, maybe you think we should see what the RC has said about Gitmo before we use their presence to defend our treatment of prisoners?

"The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has accused the U.S. military of using tactics "tantamount to torture" on prisoners at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, The New York Times reported on Tuesday (11/30/04)."

Hell the RC has even reported a bunch of instances of U.S. soldiers desecrating the Koran at Gitmo.

Maybe before you note that the Red Cross is there...you should see what the Red Cross has been saying about the place.

Balta, from your same BBC article:
-----
The International Committee of the Red Cross said it had reported the allegations in confidence to Pentagon officials many times in 2002 and 2003.

ICRC spokesman Simon Schorno said he believed the US had acted on the information.

"The US government took corrective measures and those allegations have not resurfaced," Mr Schorno said.

On Monday, Newsweek said its report that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet was based on flawed sources.
-----
Rumsfeld and company are, according to the Red Cross report, taking action against these reported abusive instances.

But hell let's just arrest Rumsfeld. Maybe Bush too, and supplant him with Kerry. Then we'll see who is laughing at the Kerry/Edwards 2004 stickers that we neglected to remove from the back of our cars.

First of all, let's be clear that the Koran stuff is only a very, very small part of the broader claims of torture and illegal detention that underly the war-crime accusations. Second, that the US stopped abusing Korans as part of its detention policy after years of complaints by the RC is hardly very exonerating -- in particular, it is evidence that we were engaging in such abuses, and more than just once or twice but "many times" (which substantively corroborates Newsweek's claims, after all). So, to put Balta's question to you again: how is any of this "despite" what the Red Cross has been saying?