6 Comments

1. Patrick  •  Aug 6, 2008 @12:09 pm
   

   While there are problems with Guantanamo and the like, those problems are mainly matters of execution rather than of intent. The intent of Guantanamo is to warehouse dangerous terrorists whose activities threaten the lives and property of many. The execution of that intent appears to have been quite poor.

   Whereas with Chinese dissidents, the intent is to silence nonviolent critics of a regime which restricts individual freedom of conscience, religion, and speech. There are no execution problems here. China has been quite successful at silencing its internal critics, by warehousing them, on a scale which dwarfs Guantanamo and in conditions which are often as bad or worse.

   It's certainly possible, and in my view commendable, to condemn both Guantanamo and Chinese dissident repression, but the two don't seem at all equivalent to me. Some though perhaps not all of those who giggle at this distinction seem rather two-faced, in that in other matters they're quick to judge by intent rather than by results. Others, particularly those who fail to grasp the differences in intent and most especially scale, just seem silly.

2. Ken  •  Aug 6, 2008 @12:40 pm
   

   Patrick, I would only agree with you if we defined "intent" extremely favorably to the administration. Sure, the intent of Gitmo is to warehouse dangerous terrorists. But the government's methods of selecting who is or isn't a dangerous terrorist are of extremely dubious reliability. The government doesn't think those methods should be questioned – it thinks that it should be able to label whomever it wants as an enemy combatant, and have that status unreviewed by any court, and therefore keep the person in Gitmo. The government sometimes makes its determinations (regarding Gitmo detainees and others) based on things like confusion about how names are spelled or based on information provided by tribal bounty hunters who get paid if they deliver terrorists (often of different, hostile tribes) and don't get paid if they don't.

   So how is the government's intent properly defined? Is it an intent to imprison only actual terrorists, executed badly? Or is it an intent to imprison whomever they determine should be imprisoned and not be questioned about it?

3. Patrick  •  Aug 6, 2008 @1:10 pm
   

   Ken, I'm not sure what you agree with me on, as I'm not sure that we're speaking about the same thing. I don't approve at all of the way the government has handled its anti-terror programs, but I think that it's clearly your first alternative, badly handled, with the additional consideration that they don't want to be questioned about it. But "whomsoever" goes too far, in that with the exceptions of Padilla and Hamdi no citizens have gotten this sort of treatment. To the extent you suggest anyone is subject to this sort of treatment (as of now) you're off base. Hamdi was a special circumstance, and Padilla, well I think he was a test case to see how far they could go.

   That aside, again, I don't support what my government has done in the way of eroding civil liberties and detention without trial or counsel since 9/11, no matter what its intent may be.

   It is still comparable to the Chinese laogai and treatment of minorities religious and ethnic, only if one is an absolute ninny with no perspective. Evil as you know has degrees. Just as the current Chinese laogai is not comparable to what went on under Mao (which is pretty close to absolute evil), it is not comparable to Guantanamo.

4. Andrew  •  Aug 6, 2008 @4:27 pm
   

   I agree with your general point, Patrick, that Chinese treatment of dissidents and activists is not equivalent to U.S. treatment of terrorism suspects.

   However, there's a kernel (a big kernel) of truth in Derrick's post. Because of Guantanamo (and Abu Ghraib), the U.S. has lost some of the moral high ground in any international debate on human rights issues.

   Those who would be inclined to side with U.S. in pressing for greater human rights (say, Germany) may be less willing to follow our lead, while those whose practices might be criticized by the U.S. can say, "Clean up your own back yard before you start lecturing us." I'm not saying that either of those responses would be logical or just, but I think that's the reality.

5. Patrick  •  Aug 6, 2008 @6:16 pm
   

   Andrew, as with Ken, I'm not sure what we disagree about. I think you either feel that I don't understand what Derrick is saying (incorrectly), or react so strongly to a "no, because" that you feel compelled to respond with a "yes, but" no matter the cost to your point.

   Germany is a particularly unfortunate nation to raise as an exemplar of good moral citizenship, without even considering history as recent as 65 years ago, for reasons you should know but which are beyond the scope of a brief comment. I spit on Germany in particular, and I don't give a damn about how our actions appear to other nations.

   All of your points, and Derrick's, and Ken's can be made with reference to American history and legal tradition, or going further, British, without resort to what people in Syria or wherever may think. Ken is the only one who's trying.

6. Andrew  •  Aug 6, 2008 @7:31 pm
   

   "I don’t give a damn about how our actions appear to other nations."

   I think this is what we disagree about. Implicit in my post was the assumption that how our actions are perceived by other nations affects our influence on other nation, which I believe is important.

   Regarding your point about Germany specifically, yes, I could have chosen a better example.