|
[Home
|
National
|
World
|
Perspectives
|
Columns
|
Money
|
Entertainment
|
Health
|
Technology
|
Letters
|
Subscribe] FinalCall.com News - Refer This Page Perspectives Democracy, Winston Churchill once quipped, is the worst system of governance, except for all the others. One shortcoming of democracies is that the people elected to serve as statesmen are usually, first and foremost, politicians. And nowadays, when successful politicians build careers by spending fortunes on campaign ads and slick message consultants, they tend to become addicted to spin over substance. When elected leader or vice leader of the free world, they find it hard to break the habit. So, when the United States is accused of violating human rights, their first instincts are to control the spin. One typical technique is to attempt to discredit the messenger by blowing minor errors out of all proportion. This distracts attention from the real violations, while focusing news coverage on the messenger and away from the government and military officials responsible. Recently, we have seen the White House deploy this time-tested technique—better suited to winning elections than to solving real problems—against two human rights messengers. The first sucker was Newsweek, which published and then retracted, a story that American guards at Guantanamo flushed the Muslim holy book down the toilet. Yes, Newsweek may have goofed by relying on a single, anonymous official source, who later admitted he may have been mistaken. But there remain continuing allegations from multiple sources that the Qur’an was dumped in a bucket used for defecation, if not in Guantanamo, then at a U.S. prison in Afghanistan. And the Pentagon now admits finding instances of abuse of the Qur’an at Guantanamo, although it refuses to provide details. Instead of responding to the real issue—American military disrespect for Islam—the White House zoomed in on Newsweek’s apparent error of fact on one aspect. End result: The story became, not religious abuse by the military, but sloppiness and alleged bias by the news media. Chalk up a victory for spin control. Now Amnesty International, the world’s largest and one of its most respected, non-partisan, human rights organizations, has walked into the vortex. In May, Amnesty published a lengthy report documenting abuses at Guantanamo and other United States detention centers. Recently, Amnesty published its even more voluminous, annual report on human rights violations around the world. Unfortunately, in a preface to the annual report, Amnesty’s Secretary-General, Irene Khan, could not resist writing that Guantanamo “has become the gulag of our times.” Now, there is much wrong at Guantanamo, but a gulag it is not. Millions died in Stalin’s camps and prisons. By comparison, scores are known to have died in American prisons at Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan. While the cruelty in individual cases may be comparable, the difference in scale is so great as to amount to a difference in kind. Predictably, the White House pounced on Amnesty’s rhetorical hyperbole, while ignoring its massively documented substance. “An absurd allegation,” huffed the President. Furthermore, added Mr. Bush, prisoner allegations come from “people who hate America.” But what about the corroboration of their allegations by FBI agents, the Red Cross, former guards, translators and interrogators at Guantanamo? Do they all hate America, too? Vice President Dick Cheney whirled the spin even further. Dismissing, not only the hyperbole, but Amnesty International itself, he told CNN’s Larry King, “I frankly just don’t take them seriously.” That tells us more about Mr. Cheney than about Amnesty. Apparently, our Vice President is content, even relieved, to zero in on a single misspoken phrase, thus sparing himself the burden of confronting Amnesty’s carefully documented report on Guantanamo—even if no one would expect him to digest its 541 footnotes. So notch up another victory for spin control: Now the story, rather than extensively documented abuses at Guantanamo and elsewhere, is about Amnesty. But I still have a few questions for Messers. Bush and Cheney: Does America engage in the practice of secret and incommunicado detentions? If so, then end them, as Amnesty recommends. Does America deny the Red Cross full access to all prisoners including those held in secret locations? If so, then grant access, as Amnesty recommends. Does America afford all prisoners access to courts? If not, then allow it, as Amnesty recommends. Has America conducted a full, independent commission of inquiry into all allegations of torture and other mistreatment of prisoners? It has not, but should, as recommended by Amnesty, as well as by the American Bar Association and former top U.S. military lawyers. Or do these questions, too, Mr. Cheney, raise issues that you frankly just don’t take seriously? (Doug Cassel is the director of the Center for International Human Rights of Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, Illinois. His commentaries are regularly broadcast on WBEZ 91.5 Chicago Public Radio’s Worldview. He may be reached via email address at d-cassel@law.northwestern.edu.)
|