Gulags and Governments

Bjørn Staerk has strong words for some on the right of U.S. politics in connection with the recent furore over Irene Khan's use of the word "gulag" in her widely-reported comments on Amnesty International's annual report:

"It was dumb of Amnesty to compare Guantanamo to the Gulag. Dumb in the way it was dumb of Bush to call the war on terror a crusade," he begins. But, he notes:

Among Bush-friendly bloggers, healthy media skepticism and appeals to a higher standard than diplomatic relations seems to have degenerated into little more than a need to deflect and minimize criticism of the Bush administration. The rhetorics is now on autopilot, and it's as shallow as that of those once so ominous Chomskyites.

The war on terror has spawned a whole gallery of fallacies and rhetorical tricks:

1. Don't defend, counterattack. "That's the left for you, what do you expect? They hate America because they're transnational progressives whose failed deconstructionist utopian thingamabobs have turned them into moral degenerates." Remember to pile on with the buzzwords - the more of them there are, the smarter you look.

2. Always choose the most favorable interpretation compatible with undeniable facts. When there is no hard evidence of torture, assume it doesn't happen. When photographic evidence is presented, call it an "isolated incidence". Never admit to the possibility of any abuse that hasn't been photographed or admitted by the perpetrator.

3. When morality fails, go for legality. Show how this sort of thing is perfectly legal, so you have no idea what people are getting so worked up about.

4. Finally, if you can't deny abuse, and you can't defend it, accept it as a "deeply unfortunate" side effect of war. Act tough and adult-like, bow your head solemnly as you contemplate the horrible things war forces us to do, but protest wildly any suggestions that we should just stop doing them.

How can we fix this? We should start by not using the flaws of human rights organizations as an excuse to ignore everything they say that we don't like. If Amnesty makes 1 idiotic claim about the US in their annual report, and 10 well-founded ones, don't forget the 10 in all the excitement over the 1. There's no reason to be defensive about criticism, even when some of it is unfair. We won, remember?

It's also time to accept that the war on terror has a war part and a judicial part. Invading an al-Qaeda stronghold is war, and should be judged by the standards of war. Arresting suspects, interrogating and imprisoning them is a form of police work, and should be carried out by the standards of the justice system. When a civilian is accidentally shot on a battlefield, that's a deeply unfortunate side effect of war. When a civilian is arrested and held for years without trial, or sent to another country to be tortured, that's not "deeply unfortunate", it's injustice.

Governments are inherently abusive, they will abuse any unchecked, unobserved power we give to them. Agreeing with some politician about foreign policy should not mean throwing centuries of democratic experience overboard. By looking for any excuse to ignore legitimate criticism of the war on terror, that's exactly what many Bush supporters are doing.