We’ll have “the guts” to do so when:
(to anticipate an objection: I do not have such a problem with pro-lifers using Holocaust language to describe abortion. Their premise, that abortion=murder, is horribly wrong, but their reasoning given the premise is sound)
Daniel
I would suspect that a lot of the outrage about this is that Durbin directed his remarks at the troops themselves, not at other politicians.
John, I think “comparing the actions” is a fair way to describe Durbin’s remark, so you’re right that the article wasn’t intrinsically misleading. However, I think the OP did somewhat overstate the issue when he said
As far as I can tell, nobody, including Sen. Durbin, is claiming that Guantanamo overall is comparable to a gulag or a concentration camp. Durbin simply asserted that certain specific abuses at Guantanamo would be readily associated with gulags or concentration camps, instead of with American military detention centers.
“Absolutely nothing” surely isn’t accurate. But if you want to evoke the image of the Gulag or of Nazi concentration camps, you better have millions of deaths as your comparison base. Otherwise, you’re grandstanding.
Guys like this just give Bush the opportunity to dodge the issues and talk about how unreasonable the opposition is. They’re not helping “the cause” any.
But there’s nothing in his remarks that implies he’s blaming the troops for the abuses. Rather, he’s saying an environment has been created which is so far from our ideals as a nation that we would not recognize ourselves if presented with the same actions out of context. I think this is an incredibly important point, in light of the fact that we see these things happening again and again and again. That’s not what I want my country to stand for.
I find it far more irritating that the discussion immediately gets changed to “Durbin called the troops Nazis!” As long as the soundbyte spin machine is running full gear, we’ll never have an actual public discussion of this stuff.
John Mace: But if you want to evoke the image of the Gulag or of Nazi concentration camps, you better have millions of deaths as your comparison base. Otherwise, you’re grandstanding.
Well then, what sort of comparison would you consider appropriate to express outrage at a brutal act of abuse? As I noted in my first post, I definitely agree that the people who (allegedly) committed and/or authorized such acts can’t be compared overall to members of regimes like Hitler’s or Stalin’s or Pol Pot’s. But the specific abuse itself, as described, does sound like something we could easily associate with such regimes, which is all that Durbin was saying.
If that’s “grandstanding”, what comparison would you consider acceptable in order to convey outrage, loathing, and vehement moral rejection of such abuses? Comparison with torture in China? Uzbekistan? The Spanish Inquisition? What sort of yardstick would be comprehensible to the general public, convey deep moral condemnation, and not be “grandstanding”, according to your views?
He says the troops are acting as if they had no concern for human beings. Yes, he says the Administration created the atmosphere, but the jab at the troops themselves is unmistakenly there. Maybe he chose his words poorly, but he hasn’t retracted a single one of them yet.
I do, too.
Kimstu, I would say that you’re right in the assessment that Durban isn’t calling American troops Nazis, nor is he necessarily saying that Gitmo is as bad as, say, Auschwitz-Berkenau. The comparison does not stand, regardless; it is not clear that anyone has been murdured at Guantanamo Bay, much less the 12 million or more who were slaughtered by A. Hitler. Our administration’s treatment of “enemy combatants” is completely disgusting, disgraceful, not to say possibly criminal; it is not, however, genocide.
This leads immediately to the question: why use the term “Nazi” at all? If the comparison doesn’t hold water, then there is no justification for such language when all it does is lower what should be a civil debate.
Let’s face it, Dopers, the GOP is in power for at least two more years, presumably more. If the Democratic Party honestly wishes to improve the plight of those interred at Guantanamo Bay, the way to do so does not involve using terms like “Nazi” to describe actions for events the GOP is responsible. If Durban were merely trying to be absolute, he could simply say, “The events taking place at Guantanamo Bay should never under any circumstances be permitted by a democratic nation.” Personally, I’d rather see a change at Guantanamo now than a change in government in four years. Maybe that’s just me.
For some fairly obvious (and good) reasons, the name “Nazi” carries serious emotional impact. Durban, regardless of how diplomatically he structured his sentence, was really just calling the GOP nasty names.
BTW (someone brought this up earlier, now I can’t find the quote), even though I’m pro-life, I would NEVER call pro-choicers Nazis. Perhaps it’s just me, but when I meet my liberal friends, I’m just never reminded of SS camp guards, and predending that I am won’t help convince any pro-choicers that I’m right.
Why is it necessary to compare it to anything? How about comparing it to actions taken by the US in the past, and show how this is out of line with the way we generally operate as a country.
Oopsie, forgot one minor point. :smack:
The fact that the GOP likes to call the Democratic Party nasty things does not justify the Dem.'s responding in kind. And I’ll be more than happy to criticize the GOP to the fullest extent next time they pull this crud.
Because legitimate comparisons are an effective rhetorical device, that’s why, and politics rest on the back of effective rhetoric.
Daniel
No, he said that actions have occurred which would be more closely associated with a brutal regime than the ideals of the U.S. That is a pretty big difference from saying the troops are acting like they have no concern for human beings, which implies the troops themselves are the ones with no concern for human beings.
In any case, his main message still stands. One can argue that he should go back and clarify it so as not to accidentally offend anyone, but the simple reality of politics means the discussion would end right there. (I mean, it probably will anyway, but backing away from his initial words allows his opponents to easily dismiss the whole thing.) Why can’t the actual point be debated for once, instead of nitpicking at the semantics?
I object to the abuse taking place daily Guantanamo Bay on the basis of universal human dignity.
I object to the use of namecalling on the basis of rationality and reasonability.
Both topics are worthy of discussion. Past threads have talked about Guantanamo Bay. This thread talks about namecalling. Please pardon my saying so, but that doesn’t seem like nitpicking to me.
The problem at Gitmo is not that prisoners were abused or that someone kicked a Koran. Things like this happen in every prison in the world. There is simply no way you can operate a prison and not have some abuse, just like you cannot execute a war w/o harming some civilians.
The problem at Gitmo is that there is no legal structure to process the inmates-- to determine who the guitly are and to punish them, and to determine who the innocent are and to let them go.
I saw an interview with the guy from Time magazine yesterday on Hardball. I think he was the one responsible for the cover story on Gitom this week. He said that his e-mail is overwhelmingly from people saying we’re too soft on the detainees. I just don’t see Americans, as a whole, being all that upset about the “outrages” at Gitmo (Abu Ghraib is another story). But I do think people understand that there should be a process to try the detainees and that we shouldn’t just “hold them forever” as some adminstration officials seem to be advocating.
Officially sanctioned torture does NOT happen in every prison in the world.
To clarify, I was complaining about debates between policymakers getting turned into semantic nitpicking and away from the actual issues, not debates here. I have no problem with semantic nitpicking here. 
Even if 99% of Americans thought we should torture ever single prisoner at Gitmo to death, that wouldn’t justify it. The role of our government is to uphold the ideals of the nation even when breaking those ideals would be a popular thing to do. The Japanese internment camps during WWII were wrong, regardless of what the public support for them was at the time.
Forgot to add: I’m not in any way implying that your comment about how Americans view Gitmo was intended to justify the situation, John Mace.
Ah, I misunderstood. Sorry. I agree with your sentiment as it applies to policymakers.
Absolutely true. I was more responding to LHoD’s post about the use of rhetorical devices. Clearly Durbin is trying to drum up outrage with his comparison, but it isn’t an effective argument because most people are not outraged by what’s going on.
Sure, he can see the difference. However, if he chooses not to, what’s the practical difference?
-Joe