Now that United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that the U.S. should close its detention facility for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, I’m just wondering if he also has asked China, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe and other nations which incarcerate and torture political opponents to close down their detention facilities.
UPDATE: I had wanted to maintain the terseness of this post because, as I tend to write rather lengthy pieces, I was delighted that a number of people complimented me on saying so much in so few words. But, after returning from a pleasant dinner with a friend (and seeing the delightful movie The Matador), I decided to do a few google searches to see if I could find out if Mr. Annan had called for closing down any prisons in the tyrannies mentioned above. While I found evidence of torture in an Iranian prison, I could only find one piece of evidence that the United Nations Secretary General spoke out on Iranian prisons–he had written a letter to Iranian President Ahmadinejad asking him to release imprisoned journalist Akbar Ganji (but not to close down the prison where he was held). I have as yet found no evidence that he asked Iran to close down any of its prisons.
If you have information that Annan has requested that prisons in Iran, North Korea or any other non-Western nation be closed, please e-mail me so I can update this post accordingly.
UP-UPDATE: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says that desipte what Kofi says, “The Pentagon will not close its Guantanamo Bay prison for terrorist suspects.” Calling the Secretary-General “just flat wrong,” the Defense Secretary said that the facility “is being run as well as any detention facility can be run” and that the prisoners have been “trained to lie” (Via: Lorie Byrd at Polipundit).
UP-UP-UPDATE: Deroy Murdock shows why Kofi is wrong and why we should not close the facility at Guantanamo Bay. He points out that when released, a number of former Gitmo detainees, returned to violence, some taking up arms against the U.S. So, instead of having me summarize the piece, just read the whole thing!
Excellent Dan! I’m not sure you’ve ever said so much in so few words :o) Seriously, spot on….it’s just further evidence that the UN is a farce
Thanks, PatriotPartner. I’m not known for being terse.
Instead of closing Gitmo, I say we shut down the UN instead.
Excellently put, Dan. Such a clearly stated question of which we all deserve an answer, alas hard to imagine we will receive one.
So let me get this straight. You’re saying we shouldn’t expect the US government to show more respect for human rights than the Iranian, Syrian or Zimbabwaian govts?
What a way to twist my words, Dan (#5). I’m just wondering if Kofi Annan, who calls for closing down a detention facility where the government which runs it investigates allegations of torture (& abuse) and prosecutes those found responsible for such abuses, has also called for closing facilities in nations where torture is a matter of government policy.
It’s amusing when critics of the Administration trot out that old line. Of course, we should expect the U.S. to show more respect for human rights than those governments. And it does. And the allegations leveled against the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have proven to be largely untrue.
The question I pose to you — and the question of this post (which you neglect to address) is shouldn’t we expect the United Nations head who asks to close a facility where there have been at worst minor abuses (most of which have been alleged, but not substantiated), should ask nations where the torture is routine and where the victims don’t have recourse to lawyers, courts and a friendly news media to close its “detention facilities”?
I have used at least twice as many words to comment as I did in the post, but I daresay you won’t answer the question I pose and will instead find a way to fault the President and to allege that torture is routine at U.S. facilities.
#5
I think he’s saying that we should expect more honesty from the UN rather than the usual America hating blather. I think he’s also saying that Anan needs to get off his rich lazy ass and get the UN to do what the f**k they were created to do.
Does anybody else find it interesting that the UN refused to actually visit Club Gitmo and instead relied on the word of these SOBs who are taught to claim they were tortured?
I find that strikingly similar to the ass clowns on the left who put more faith in Saddam Hussein than in their own president.
Heh.
The US is always held to higher standards. And it’s not, you know, like we shouldn’t try to always be better… but it’s a movable goal by definition. Could we ever be good enough? Is anyone “good” but God?
So there will always be something to criticize. Does the fact that we aren’t perfect require that international organizations should ignore all the petty tyrants who apparently don’t know any better? Do the victims in those third world cess-pools say “Forgive our tormentors, it’s not fair to hold them to first world standards”?
And you have to wonder… do those watch-dog groups do it because it’s simutaneously *safe* to denounce the US while apparently *brave* because we’re the biggest dog in the neighborhood? They get their cake and eat it too. Win-win.
#9
They do it because it’s easy and keeps them in favor with their “friends”.
I think you’re on to something in your concluding paragraph, Synova.
#9 – Synova it’s like that joke about how the less likely a minority group is to fight back, the more likely it is for comedians to joke about them. In Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Zinbabwe, and Red China, you get killed for criticizing the government. In America, you get media celebrity and a six-figure book deal. Also, your media and leftist buddies will pat you on the back for showing how ‘courageous’ you are.
In America, you get media celebrity and a six-figure book deal.
That is, so long as you’re criticizing the government while a Republican is in power.
So all this Left anti-Americanism is a backhanded validation of America’s basic goodness and rightness.
They couldn’t, they wouldn’t, be doing it unless America were, in fact, MUCH better than they ever claim.
It’s a simple concept – the US, which once served as a beacon of democracy and freedom to the world, should be held to the highest standards. Saying “Well, Zimbabwe’s doing it too!” is just depressing. And, as you’ve learned, Annan has spoken out against the inhumane acts of Iran, Zimbabwe and other countries. It just doesn’t get as much press over here, given the insular nature of american media.
The UN needs reform, undoubtedly. But this strawman you’re trying to create only distracts us from the real problem in our own backyard.
Well, Dan #15, I was right. You ignored my question.
I created no strawman. I made a point about the head of an international organization who asks that the U.S. close down a prison — and so far as I can tell — has not called for the closing of prisons (in other lands) with conditions far worse even than the worst allegations leveled against Guantanamo.
You say Annan has spoken out against inhuman acts in those nations, but has he asked that their prisons be closed? (That was the question of this post.) I did a google search last night to see what he had said about Iran and came up empty-handed. If you can provide information (with a link) that he asked that any of the aforementioned nations to close their prisons, I will update my post.
And once again, you put things into my post (& comment) which just aren’t there. The point of this post was to draw attention to Kofi Annan’s hypocrisy. I did not say, nor imply, that because it’s worse in Zimbabwean prisons, we can excuse “torture” at Guantanamo. I believe that allegations of abuse should be investigated and when those allegations are substantiated, those responsible should be dismissed from their positions and prosecuted. And so far that has happened. Thus, once again, the U.S. investigations allegations of torture and mistreatment while for the other nations, torture and mistreatment are a matter of policy.
So, please take issue with my points not those you wish I made.
Aw, GPW, you went and shredded Dan and didn’t leave a piece for the rest of us.
OK, you’re not quite getting it. Do you think Annan supports the human rights abuses in China/Zimbabwe/Iran/etc? Of course not. But these are all known to be repressive, totalitarian states. It’s a little more damaging to human rights worldwide when the supposed leader in human rights is suddenly engaging in the same techniques as those rogue states. I don’t blame him for taking aim at what’s going on in Guantanamo before going after those other countries. We’re supposed to be setting the example and we just aren’t doing that.
No, Dan, you’re not quite getting it.
If Annan were an American, your argument might carry some weight. But, he heads an international organization.
The issue is–and remains — whether or not he has made public statements on prisons in those lands as he has about Guantanamo. Of course, we’re supposed to be setting an example — and we are, by investigating the charges and prosecuting those responsible for abuses.
If you don’t blame him for taking aim at what’s going on at Guantanamo, why don’t you take issue with him for his silence on prisons in totalitarian regimes? And that’s my point — which you have yet to address.
“Do you think Annan supports the human rights abuses in China/Zimbabwe/Iran/etc?
Can’t tell. He hasn’t said!
We’re supposed to be setting the example and we just aren’t doing that.
And you just can’t see that we are. For all the bad things that we are responsible for, we are at least addressing the problem. The abuses are being exposed. People are getting punished. Justice and retribution may not be as severe as you or I might like, but we are doing SOMETHING to correct the problem. Compare that to civil rights abuses in “China/Zimbabwe/Iran/etc?” Might as well add the still ignored ethnic cleansing in Darfur. Again, I and most of us here are not happy with some of the stuff that went on in Abu Graihb and other places (except for V, but he’s Jack Bauer personified:-). But that behavior is the exception for the US and not the rule. The UN is a failed institution because it has lost it moral authority because it ignores the HR abuses of the China’s and Cuba’s and Iran’s and Sudan’s of the world. That would create a sense of unrest in the hallowed chambers of the vaunted security counsel, divide the member nations and piss people off, so not action is taken or even mentioned. Instead, the UN targets the United States because that’s the popular position within the organization, and it knows there will be no repercussions. It’s a big fat high school clique, picking on and taking the lunch money from the guy that will roll with the punches. I’ll say it again.
They do it because it’s easy.
wooops. should have read: “no action is taken…”
Rush Limbaugh, Bill Reilly, Newt Gingrich, etc. all had major book deals during the Clinton administration. Not to mention all the books critical of Clinton that came out after he left office. There is a huge industry devoted to such endeavors, I don’t think you can say it’s biased in favor of one party.
I’m often amused at how some of my critics ignore the very point of my posts. Even the title indicates that this is about the United Nations, particularly its Secretary-General. Yet, it seems they only want to criticize the United States, particularly its president.
Why is the other Dan, likely so eager to bash Bush, so reluctant to fault Kofi Annan?
It’s a simple concept – the US, which once served as a beacon of democracy and freedom to the world,
Once?
There is a huge industry devoted to such endeavors, I don’t think you can say it’s biased in favor of one party.
The hell I can’t.
When I go to Books-A-Million and find far more (I would say more than twice if not three times ) books criticizing Bush than Clinton. I have yet to see manuals on how to hate Clinton or any books suggesting his assassination. I’ve not seen very many books criticizing Clinton with titles using variations of “Lie, cheat, steal”. Further, I’ve not seen many books, calenders, etc. mocking how Clinton, or anybody else for that matter, talks.
On a side note, Bill and Hillary had their books right up front as soon as you walked in the door. I never saw Dick Morris’ books up there. I have yet to see a book by a conservative writer at the front door.
BTW, Dan,
You keep operating under the ASSumption that we have tortured prisoners at Club Gitmo when it has been proven to be patently false. Once again, as liberals are wont to do, you’re showing that you believe the P’sOS that were held there.
Why? Because you WANT it to be true. You want to believe them over your own government because you have some bastardized notion that whatever we do, we’re guilty of something. We’re not the evil ones here. As long as you believe that America is bad and Bush is the enemy, neither you nor the liberals will get anywhere.
You might have a point, if you howled far more loudly about the barbarians beheading captives, or burning embassies (ostensibly) because of cartoons, or demanded the immediate reform of the UN. But the “criticize only the US and give everybody else a pass” line has no moral authority or force — and is not to be taken seriously.
#26 Elsewhere in a left/right discussion about the military this same sort of willful belief became apparent as the liberal gentleman, in all good faith, asked about drug abuse in the military. He wasn’t trying to be unfair, he just really thought that *of course* drug abuse was a big problem in the military. I suggested that this was a matter of prefering a “romantic” version of reality that wasn’t really true. I think it’s the same with torture. It’s not “romantic” in a good way, but the drama and angst are perfect for a movie. It doesn’t matter what evidence is actually available when people want to believe the dramatic thing, rather than the boring thing.
It’s a couple of weeks old news by now but Karpinski (of Abu Ghraib infamy) recently charged that female soldiers in Iraq had such a problem with being raped by male soldiers that they die of dehydration rather than drink enough fluid and risk needing to go to the loo at night. People picked that up with never a second thought about how someone who still claims ignorance of the abuses in her own command could possibly know this. And to show that the specific charges were untrue? Well, that was just trying to deny the larger problem, the dramatic glorious TRUTH of sex and violence.
I swear that some people are IN LOVE with the idea that we torture people… that our soldiers are emotionally tortured drug addicts… that female soldiers are victimized by their brothers-in-arms. It makes the world feel vital and alive or something… much more than our boring go-to-work and maybe see a movie on the weekend lives.
It’s like…. slumming.
Or something.
#28
It doesn’t matter what evidence is actually available when people want to believe the dramatic thing, rather than the boring thing.
The thing is that liberals aren’t interested in evidence or facts because that would destroy their view. Any evidence against their torture lie would just piss on their parade, if you will, and they’d have one less reason to hate Bush.
Essentially, the truth only proves that liberals are liars and they won’t stand for it. They have to keep repeating the lies on the hopes that eventually it will become true.
Frankly, the views of Dan and others on the Left can only be described as crudely racist. When “those people” do horrific things to each other, or us, it’s understandable because that’s the way they are. We are held to a higher standard because…. well because we’re just better that they are. It’s just unfair to insist that “those people” conform to standards they simply are unequipped to meet. It’s our duty to ignore and/or rationalize their actions because they just can’t help being what they are. The White Man’s Burden and all that. So Progressive. So very 19th century.
Because more than anything else, they despise the United States and believe the US to be evil. This is why they howl about Abramoff, but see no problem in taking money from a convicted criminal with a violtently anti-American political agenda (Soros). This is why they have their tongues so far up the anus of the UN they can’t pull them out, despite the overwhelming evidence, growing every day, of the UN’s corruption and consistent support for thugs, dictators and terrorists.
The next time you see a liberal, say “national sovereignty” and watch his head explode.
I have a follow-up question. SG Annan has asked the US to get involved with peacekeeping in Darfur. Peacekeeping implies the existence of troublemakers, since otherwise the peace would keep itself. Assuming a UN peacekeeper happens upon a troublemaker in Darfur, what is he supposed to do about it? Issue a $50 citation? We certainly can’t lock him up anywhere, can we?
Mitch, you made me aware of an interesting irony in all this. Kofi will call upon the U.S. — and no other nation — to shut down a prison, yet will call upon the U.S. — before any other nation — to help out with humanitarian relief and help promote peace in troubled lands.
And while we’re talking about the UN and the lack of human rights credibility, there’s this happy bit of info from Volokh. Couldn’t this qualify them as a terrorist organization? Why we don’t tie future funding to the eradication of such programs is beyond me.
Most Gitmo detainees are innocent:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1155AP_Guantanamo_Detainees.html
“More than half of the terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay have not been accused of committing hostile acts against the United States or its allies, two of the detainees’ lawyers said in a report released Tuesday.
Compiled from declassified Defense Department evaluations of the more than 500 detainees at the Cuba facility, the report says just 8 percent are listed as fighters for a terrorist group, while 30 percent are considered members of a terrorist group and the remaining 60 percent were just “associated with” terrorists.
…
According to the report, 55 percent of the detainees are informally accused of committing a hostile act. But the descriptions of their actions ranged from a high-ranking Taliban member who tortured and killed Afghan natives to people who possessed rifles, used a guest house or wore olive drab clothing.
The report also found that about one-third of the detainees were linked to al-Qaida; 22 percent to the Taliban; 28 percent to both; and 7 percent to either one or the other, but not specified.”
Let me preface by saying that I sometimes read this blog. I am gay and I am liberal. I am truly disappointed that we even have Gitmo in its current form (detention without charge, no representation, possible torture). I find its existence offensive to our Constitiution. Further, I don’t care about the UN. It really says something, and not something good in my mind, when the world body has to remind the US how to behave.
With all that said, I am also disappointed in the rancor that has proliferated between the gay right and the gay left. Hell, with this kind of “yelling at each other,” we don’t need enemies like the evangelical neoconservatives.
It would be beneficial to stop focusing on something so petty as whether or not Secretary Annan should chastise other nations and actually direct your energies toward gaining equality under our Constitution for American gays/lesbians or toward something most horrible, that being the clear, without a doubt torture and killings that occurs in Iran (and other countries) of any men, and in particular, gay men.
My two cents.
DR
Utter crap — and there is nothing that supports your idiotic statement in that “newspaper” article.
Kofi Annan and the rest of the UN are just pissed that the US shut down their gravy train in the form of Saddam Hussein, and are using liberals as their lackeys to punish the US for its impertinence.
It would be beneficial to stop focusing on something so petty as whether or not Secretary Annan should chastise other nations
So, chastising the UN for ignoring real human rights abuses in Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Zimbabwe is “petty?” Good Lord.
So, chastising the UN for ignoring real human rights abuses in Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Zimbabwe is “petty?” Good Lord.
You completely missed the point of my post. I guess it was too liberal.
Actually, FTL, here’s the salient point I found in your post:
It really says something, and not something good in my mind, when the world body has to remind the US how to behave.
Of course, this would be the same world body that had no trouble with Saddam’s systematic brutality as long as he continued to pay them.
I didn’t watch Kofi’s statement, but I’m sure he made it with hand outstretched….and palm upward. As I said before, this has nothing to do with what is actually taking place at Gitmo; it’s all about punishing those impertinent Americans for cutting Kofi et al. off from their Mercedes money.
Fortunately, they have puppet American liberals who didn’t give a whit about torture or murder or wrongful imprisonment until allegations of it could be used in attempts to smear Bush and a media who covers up the proven, systematic abuses that Saddam and others made — all in the name of “dealing peace”, of course.
I’ve challenged every liberal who whines about Gitmo to affirm the following: while supposedly in “compliance” with UN dictums, Saddam Hussein systematically imprisoned, tortured, and murdered millions of people based on their religion, racial origins, and political dissidence.
For some odd reason, they just can’t do it.