There's an axiom that goes, "he who defines the terms, wins the argument." I think liberals of all stripes need to learn this lesson, quickly.
The fuss over Amenesty International calling GITMO, a gulag this past week is a perfect example of an opportunity to define the terms that was missed.
When an ally commits hyperbole, as was the case (Stalin interred millions for crimes that were never committed), we should rush to defend our ally first, and then simply redefine the terms they were trying to call attention to.
It's judo, and it's as easy as saying...
Amnesty international just lacked the vocabulary to describe GITMO. They weren't wrong about GITMO being a shameful violation of human rights, were they?
This awful thing we are all standing around and watching happen in slow-motion reflects on the US as a nation and hinders her best interests, does it not?
Gitmo is an unAmerican prison where hundreds (upwards of a couple of thousand (is there a definitive number?)) have been interred with no legal access or recourse, yes?
And then you can throw in for good measure that it's high time time to apologise for it like men, and stop it now. Make reperations.
When Bush and Rumsfeld criticized the AI report for overstating what GITMO was, it was a perfect opportunity for us all to express our
outrage (really, where is it?) at the administration and the short-sighted policies that they've signed on to. Instead, they get to duck the hard questions by pointing to the dreaded hyperbole of Amenesty International.
I would like to simply ask these men the question, "...given the catalogued abuses that have been verified by the Pentagon, what words would you use you describe GITMO?"
For a horrowing account of the history of the Russian gulag, read Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn's, The Gulag Archipelago.