Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (105519)	6/1/2005 8:39:08 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Personally, I feel embarrassed for Amnesty International. Why Gitmo's no gulag By John Podhoretz Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - Updated: 01:35 AM EST Can it be? Did Amnesty International, which purports to be the world's leading independent monitor of human rights abuses, describe the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay as ``the gulag of our times'? Yes, it did. So let's do a few comparisons between Gitmo and the Gulag - the network of Soviet prison camps set up by Stalin in the 1920s. Number of prisoners at Gitmo: approximately 600. Number of prisoners in the Gulag: 25 million, according to peerless Gulag historian Anne Applebaum. Number of camps at Gitmo: 1. Number of camps in the Gulag: At least 476, according to Applebaum. Political purpose of Gulag: The suppression of internal dissent inside a totalitarian state. Political purpose of Gitmo: The suppression of an international terrorist group that had attacked the United States, killing 3,000 people while attempting to decapitate the national government through the hijack of jets. Financial purpose of Gulag: Providing totalitarian economy with millions of slave laborers. Financial purpose of Gitmo: None. Seizure of Gulag prisoners: From apartments, homes, street corners inside the Soviet Union. Seizure of Gitmo prisoners: From battlefield sites in Afghanistan in the midst of war. Even the most damaging charge Amnesty International levels against the United States and its conduct at Gitmo, that our government has been guilty of ``entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law,' bears no relation to the way things worked when it came to the Gulag. Soviet prisoners were charged, tried and convicted in courts of law according to the Soviet legal code. For this reason, Gulag prisoners like Vladimir Bukovsky and Anatoly Sharansky (later Natan Sharansky) were able to gum up the Soviet legal works by using the letter of Soviet law against their captors and tormentors. The problem with the Gulag wasn't that the letter of the law wasn't followed, that the prisoners were given ``arbitrary and indefinite' sentences. It's that the charges were trumped up and confessions were coerced. The situation at Gitmo is entirely different. No one argues that the vast majority of those imprisoned there wereal-Qaeda personnel. The problem, according to those who scream about unfairness, is that the prisoners aren't being treated as lawful combatants under the terms of the Geneva Convention or as prisoners of war. They have been handled under special terms because they are stateless with allegiance not to a country but to a terrorist group. Their nations of origin wouldn't have wanted them back, would have killed them or would have foolishly released them to foment further terrorism. Amnesty International was founded in part to serve as a watchdog of Communist human-rights abuse. They surely know that even though they might consider the American camp at Guantanamo Bay a terrible violation of human rights, it is a speck on a speck of a mote of dust compared to the Everest of horror that was the Soviet Gulag. Or, maybe not. The people at Amnesty International really do think that the imprisonment of 600 certain or suspected terrorists is tantamount to the imprisonment of 25 million slaves. The case of Amnesty International proves that well-meaning people can make morality their life's work and still be little more than moral idiots. news.bostonherald.com John Podheretz is a columnist for the New York Post, where this article first appeared.