Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Debating Guantanamo

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!. Posted June 3, 2005.


Amnesty's chief goes head-to-head with a White House lawyer about Guantanamo, war crimes, and the word 'gulag.'

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Amy Goodman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Editor’s Note: A week ago Amnesty International accused the Bush administration of being a "leading purveyor and practitioner" of human rights violations. Since then, debate has intensified over the U.S. war on terror. On Tuesday, Bush described the Amnesty report as "absurd." What follows is a debate between Amnesty's William Schulz and attorney David Rivkin, who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

AMY GOODMAN: At a news conference yesterday, President Bush dismissed the report [she plays excerpt from the news conference].

REPORTER: Mr. President, recently Amnesty International said you have established "a new gulag of prisons around the world beyond the reach of the law and decency." I'd like your reaction to that, and also your assessment of how it came to this, that that is a view not just held by extremists and anti-Americans, but by groups that have allied themselves with the United States government in the past. And what the strategic impact is that in many places of the world, the United States these days under your leadership is no longer seen as the good guy?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. It's absurd allegation. The United States is a country that is -- promotes freedom around the world. When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way. It's just an absurd allegation. In terms of, you know, the detainees, we have had thousands of people detained. We have investigated every single complaint against the detainees. Seemed like to me, they base some of their decisions on the word of -- on the allegations by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that have been trained in some instances to disassemble. That means not tell the truth. So, it's an absurd report. Just is. And you know -- yes, sir.

AMY GOODMAN: That was President Bush speaking at a news conference yesterday. Joining us on the phone from New York is the Executive Director of Amnesty International U.S.A, William Schultz. Also in our D.C. Studio, David Rivkin, partner in the Washington office of Baker and Hostetler, also served in a variety of legal and policy positions in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, including stints at the White House counsel's office, office of the Vice President and the Departments of Justice and Energy, was also a visiting fellow at the Nixon Center and a contributing editor of the National Review magazine. Let's begin with William Schultz responding to what President Bush had to say about your report.

WILLIAM SCHULTZ: Well, it's quite interesting that the Vice President doesn't take Amnesty seriously. The President calls us absurd. But, you know, when Amnesty International took on Saddam Hussein 20 years ago, when Donald Rumsfeld was courting him, and even in the run-up to the Iraq war; when Amnesty International was regularly quoted by Mr. Rumsfeld and other officials about Saddam Hussein's brutality — under those circumstances, this administration didn't think we were absurd at all. When we criticize Cuba, when we criticize North Korea, when we criticize China, as we have repeatedly, this administration applauds Amnesty International. But when we criticize the United States, we are suddenly absurd. I think the administration doth protest too much.

Let me clarify one point of your introduction, though, Amy. Amnesty International has urged that the United States undertake these investigations with a high-level commission and the appointment of a special prosecutor. And we have only said that if the United States fails to do its job, then other countries who are party to the Convention Against Torture and other international instrumentalities, have a legal obligation to investigate and, if appropriate, if they find evidence, then, of course, to prosecute.

AMY GOODMAN: David Rivkin, your response.

DAVID RIVKIN: First of all, Amnesty International indeed has a long and illustrious legacy. Amnesty International in the past has been an equal opportunity critic, if you will, bringing spotlight on abuses by many dictatorial and authoritarian regimes, including Cuba, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Iraq, etc., etc.


Digg!

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program Democracy Now!.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Guantanamo is part of a gulag...
Posted by: jules_siegel on Jun 3, 2005 4:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...called the American prison system. All the techniques used in Guantanamo have been previously used in American prisons and jails. Only when they are applied to foreigners does anyone make it important enough to be mentioned in a White House press conference. The war in Iraq is a distraction from the real war at home that affects millions of American families who live in a new kind of occupied territory called the police state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Offensive? Yes. Gulag? Yes. Posted by: brasilaron
Debating Guantanamo
Posted by: marga on Jun 3, 2005 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gulag: any place that dissenters are sent to, or the isolating or imprisoning of dissenters.

The more the Bush admin and its supporters protest against humanitarian agencies and their conclusions, the guiltier they become.

David Rivkin says that Amnesty International has "gone astray". That's what the Bush administration and its supporters have said about the UN, the EU, and to a lesser extent NATO and any other entity that does not agree 100% with the criminal activities of Bush and his cons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sigh
Posted by: nakis on Jun 3, 2005 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, someone asked the president a tough question. My heart was racing when I read that.

And the president responded in his usual gibberish. This is a college graduate that grew up amoung the elite wealthy. Something is seriously wrong when the best schools and the best elite training produces a guy who can't speak in complete sentences.

Just how many times must an administration lie before people question whether he is lying again? How much crap has to spew out of their propaganda machine before action is taken?
I think we all know the answers to this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Bush really incompetent?
Posted by: karyse on Jun 3, 2005 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the errors that we make in discussing Bush and his non-response to questions is to assume (because his non-answers are so idiotic) that he is unintelligent. This is a mistake since idiots cannot be held accountable.

Unfortunately, judging by his reelection, many people in the U.S. prefer an idiot for president and never before in history has anyone played to that. If someone is an idiot it will seem like anything that he/she does is the result of not knowing any better and forgiveness (and forgetfulness) will come easier.

I must therefore assume that everything that he says is carefully scripted for the appearance of idiocy. In this way he won't be held accountable and recognized for what he is -- devilishly astute. He knows full well what he is saying, and he is clever in his ability to NOT answer in any way that makes sense.

Because of his non-answers one half of the country calls him an idiot and the other half (who don't care what he says anyway) are quite happy to live inside his social construction of reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Is Bush really incompetent? Posted by: Iamnotafruittree
ZylogZ80
Posted by: ZylogZ80 on Jun 3, 2005 11:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...people who hate America, people that have been trained in some instances to disassemble. That means not tell the truth."

No, disassemble means "to take apart" or "to break down a whole in to it's constituent parts."

Could he have meant disseminate? As in, "to disseminate falsities?" This doesn't work either, as disseminate doesn't mean to lie, but rather, "to spread abroad" or "to scatter widely."

I do not believe that one's eloquence is an indicative sign of their general intelligence or specialized aptitudes, but this flagrant inability to articulate thoughts and orate sensibly should be enough to shake anyone's faith in the president's abilities, regardless of one's political slant or vested interests.

At best, our president could be someone who quite honestly just has trouble speaking. He may be someone of commendable intelligence, who has trouble verbalizing. Oscar Wilde was afflicted by what he called his "hesitations of speech." On the other (more cynical) hand, we may have a president who purposefully mangles his speech in order to pander to a group of people by stereotyping them as poor speakers, and men of simple minds. His lack of rhetorical skill may be a reflection of his prejudice against his base. It would be like a white man adopting hip-hop slang when speaking with a black man to try and build a common ground, when in fact he is merely reflecting his own racism.

Then again he may just be a fool... Who knows? Not I.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Posted by: mama_jess
» RE: ZylogZ80 Posted by: jingoist
It's a shame
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 3, 2005 5:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And the shame is on us, our honor, our national conscience, and especially those who have died and are dying now in American uniforms.

The source of the shame is an administration in Washington that struts in the costume of the 'tough guy' who feels no sympathy for anyone believed to stand in the way. Wrapping recklessness and wantonness in the Stars and Stripes just has carried us down immitating the worst horrors of our enemies.

Those who manage somehow to live without a sense of shame are cripples. We, the American electorate, have put the inmates in charge of the asylum. They have brought shame upon us all.

May God have mercy on our souls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New terrorists
Posted by: amilius on Jun 4, 2005 1:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amusing that Rivkin cites a circumstance where someone held incommunicado and abused at Guantanamo, was released, more than likely because of no previous history as an insurgent, returned home and became an insurgent. Now why would someone get upset enough about a stay in Guantanamo to react hostilely? Might it be like all those people in Iraq who don't appreciate the shambles their lives have been rendered by the foreign occupiers bossing them and their leaders around? Rivkin disingenuously shills the idea that ungracious actions by the US are actually gracious and appreciated. Doesn't everyone like travel, incarceration, and isolation in foreign lands? He is as bad at feigning ignorance and indignation as the White House Stooges: George W., Dick, and Rummy, with Gen. Miller filling the role of Shemp. The consequences of their choices will fill the ranks of our antagonists for generations to come. Don't we all feel safer now? I don't think so. Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk.
No offense by association is intended to the classic Three Stooges of entertainment. Nothing entertains about these stooges but their awaited exit from the world stage and potential prosecution for crimes against humanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JINGOIST
Posted by: jingoist on Jun 4, 2005 5:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amnesty International's use of the word gulag is viciously anti American. My grandparents (G-d rest their souls) had to run for their very lives long ago from the former Soviet Union. The communist animals used to send people to the gulags for "political" crimes against the State. My grandparents were wonderful, kind, hard working people whose only "crime" was their refusal to stop worshipping as Jews. They ran for their lives, Hitler later took care of the rest of the family. The Gulag system is alive and well in the remainder of the communist world. Countries like China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba and now even Venezuela continue this horrific legacy of the Soviet Union. The tally of the dead ranges from 25-166million!! The total number of wrongfully imprisoned (people accused of thought crimes, political crimes, haters etc.) range up to 200million !!!! When AI calls our terrorist detention camp in Guantanamo a gulag , they expose themselves as the left-wing hateful stooges that the've become. When William Schultz said, "I'm simply not willing to get into an argument about semantics", my first thought was, "I wouldn't argue semantics either if I was caught lying." Words mean things folks. The word Gulag, and all that it entails does not apply to our terrorist detention camps. The question is ...do the words honesty and integrity apply to Amnesty International anymore ??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Word Meanings Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: sterlingwisdom
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: jingoist
Pope George's Infallibility
Posted by: mick on Jun 5, 2005 2:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reign of George Bush is no presidency, but a pontificate. In this faith-based kind of government facts don't matter. His fundamentalist Christian worshippers believe every single word, no matter if it is stupid or just an often repeated lie. All knowledge is based on Holy Srciptures, Holy Words from the authority. The earth was created some 6000 years ago by Intelligent Design. He who doubts is Anti-American und will be prosecuted by the Inquisition of corporate media "journalists". No one is allowed to say a word which is not approved by the scholastic theologians in government and press. Welcome to the Middle Ages!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DESECRATE THE QUÁRAN. WAS NEWSWEEK EVER IN ERROR? ©
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Jun 5, 2005 11:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Amy Goodman . . .

I enjoyed your essay and all that it evokes.

I too felt a need to discuss Guantánamo. After the more recent revelation, my need deepened. I put my thoughts to page. Please explore my thoughts and share yours. I offer a short excerpt of my writing. . .
DESECRATE THE QUÁRAN. WAS NEWSWEEK EVER IN ERROR? ©

On Friday night, June 3, 2005, the true story of the Quáran [Koran] was made public. Newsweek did not report the story; they were beaten, battered, and badly bruised. They could take no more chances, no more criticism. The Whitehouse had won their battle with this periodical. Newsweek editors partially retracted their earlier report “GUANTANAMO, A Scandal Spreads.”

Amnesty International did not disclose these, though this organization had also revealed disturbing tales of woe and derision. This recent release was that of the American military. A Department of Defense inquiry affirms that guards and interrogators at the Guantánamo Bay detention center in Cuba kicked, stepped on, and splashed urine on the Quáran.

Betsy L. Angert, Be-Think

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]