Why you shouldn't use the Hitler argument

Because Dick Cheney can go around saying that you're lying when you're not.  It's not just Dick Cheney.  Amesty International has been widely criticized for using the word "gulag" (which I'm taking as basically the same as the "Hitler argument;" I wrote about the Hilter argument here) in relation to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. 

Here, for example, is an excerpt from a critical John Podhoretz piece:

So let's do a few comparisons between Gitmo and the Gulag - the network of Soviet prison camps set up by Stalin in the 1920s.

     Number of prisoners at Gitmo: approximately 600.

     Number of prisoners in the Gulag: 25 million, according to peerless Gulag historian Anne Applebaum.

     Number of camps at Gitmo: 1.

     Number of camps in the Gulag: At least 476, according to Applebaum.

     Political purpose of Gulag: The suppression of internal dissent inside a totalitarian state.

     Political purpose of Gitmo: The suppression of an international terrorist group that had attacked the United States, killing 3,000 people while attempting to decapitate the national government through the hijack of jets.

Now, of course if you thought that Amesty International merely made a blanket comparison, you might think that the Podhoretz's response has some merit.  But here's what Amnesty International actually said:

"The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has become the gulag of our times, entrenching the practice of arbitrary and indefinite detention in violation of international law," Khan writes. "Trials by military commissions have made a mockery of justice and due process."

Which, of course, is correct.  The admin has been trying to entrench the practice of arbitrary indefinite detention.  Which Stalin did too.  So that one point of comparison is correct.  The other points of comparison, like killing millions of your own countrymen and providing slave labor, of course, are not correct. 

Now, of course, that's not the comparison that Amnesty International was trying to make.  But because they used the word "gulag," the story is about the word "gulag" and not about the arbitrary indefinite detention.

So I blame Amnesty International in this case for not foreseeing the consequences of their poor choice of words, despite the basic accurateness of their perception.  They should have known that the admin would take any chance it can get to deflect attention from the substance of the report.  They should be more careful in the future, for the very sake of the causes they advance.  Because of their choice of words, their report will have less impact and less credibility than it otherwise should.  And I think we can all learn a lesson from that.

(But Dick Cheney is still a liar.)

-- Michael

Comments

[Des]

I strongly disagree here.

I believe the Hitler/Stalin comparison is the only thing that will scare enough of the population into full scale revolt against Repubs.

They are using the Nazi rulebook in the White House and getting AWAY with it because no one wants to make the analogy.

It's much easier than making the "totalitarian" argument. That just goes over a person's head, but put those names in and they "get" it in no time.

This is why the right fights it the way they do. They KNOW it is their DOOM if people actually buy into it.

In a recent political convo, there was a Dem trying to talk to a Mod Repub about Bush's totalitarian ways.

The guy just didn't get it.

I interrupted and simply used the quote that Repubs used after the SC wouldn't get involved with Terry S: "No man, no problem" told him the quote was actually from Stalin and told him it REALLY meant "KILL the man, no problem".

Then I used Rove's quote about telling a lie 5 times it becomes the truth and Bush's recent "catapulting the propaganda" slip in Greece.

I told him both of these ideas come straight from the Hitler playbook.

I finished off saying the President overseeing our Democracy and his party are using quotes and techniques used by 2 of history's most deplorable dictators.

The man nearly wet his pants.

Told me today he joined an anti-war organization.

The analogy works; it's a matter of learning the proper place, words, and time, to use them on a national scale.

[Donna]

They are going to spin and deflect no matter what the left says. What I want to know is when are the dems going to stand up and call them on it. I agree with Des, this is appropriate and accurate.

Also I refer you to the url above, http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGAMR510632005, amnesty's position with some of their numbers. It appears. according to Amnesty, there's far more than "one" gulag and the total number of prisoners is approximately 70,000 "detainees", not a small number.

And if you believe any part of the purpose of Gitmo is "the suppression of an international terrorist group that had attacked the United States, killing 3,000 people while attempting to decapitate the national government through the hijack of jets", you must be talking about bushco.

They have decapitated the national government, just not in the way you expected so the political purpose of the Gulag and Gitmo is the same: The suppression of internal dissent inside a totalitarian state.

They've turned the US and the constitution on it's ear, and the citizens of america are intimidated and running scared. No one can open their mouth or disagree with the "resident" in the White House for fear of being called unpatriotic. If that's not hitler-esq, I don't know what is.

[hedley]

If the administration apologists did not have "gulag" to rail against, something equally beside the point would be employed to deflect attention from the essential truth of the report. The key part of the sentence is "of our times." Of course Guantanamo and the network of American interrogation/prison facilities around the globe do not resemble Stalin's network of gulags, but I imagine that being held against one's will in either one would be equally unpleasant.

[jimbo]

Amnesty International and poor choice of words?
I get it, Gitmo is just like a frat hazing. Thats
a much choice of words. If peoiple would call this admin liars that would be a good choice instead of using the coined phrases, I mis-spoke,
out of context or the classic I never said that (when you can watch TIVO and see them say it. Lets call them what they are LIARS nitpicking words are what this admin wants you to do instead of seeing reality.......

[HWL]

look y'all,

let's try this again. republicans are great at stategery. they find themselves a message, and they hammer it home no matter how false it is and no matter how many times they have to say it.

we, on the other hand, are not quite as good at it. since the facts are on our side, all we really need to do is convince people to accept the facts. Gitmo is horrifying, Amnesty International has documented how horrifying it is, and all republicans should have to confront the actions of their president.

But attention is distracted from the facts when the word "gulag" becomes a partisan football. instead, we need to stick to the facts, and to the numbers.

commenter Des brings up an interesting example that I'd forgotten about:

I interrupted and simply used the quote that Repubs used after the SC wouldn't get involved with Terry S: "No man, no problem" told him the quote was actually from Stalin and told him it REALLY meant "KILL the man, no problem".

Of course, this is a different story all together. A Stalin comparison there is not out of order because the guy actually quoted Stalin.

But my point here is a simple one: the repubs are going to try to use a smoke screen anyway. Why don't we not hand them one?

[Jeremy]

http://blamebush.typepad.com

Although Bush may be "Hitlerian" this liberal doesn't go with the mainstream liberal idealogy, but finds his own thinking. He doesn't take his points off of Democratic Underground. I find his site very stimulating.

[Phil Marks]

For the most part I disagree with the information your organization keeps bringing up about the "Gitmo" terrorist detention camp.
We have a big problem in this country and it concerns organiztions like yours and ACLU. Lets face it both Amesty Int'l and ACLU hate the fact that President Bush won the last election. Face it you and the ACLU are doing everything to undermine the very foundation freedom is base upon. The World is not perfect and never will be. It seems to me you people have not learned from the happenings that took place on 11 Sept. 2001. Three thousand Americans lost their lives because of fanatics from the Muslim faith. You think we can appease them? Hell no and they will kill regardless of who one might be and that includes you people if they have a chance.
It doesn't take a person of high education to see right through the front Amensty Int'l and ACLU are putting forward. My personal opinion is both of your organizations have really gone from protecting the innocent to trying to undermine the USA and President Bush. And again don't forget the terrorist will kill you as soon as anyone else. Its that plain and simple.
"Freedom isn't free" don't forget it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HWL]

Phil,

I don't know what you're talking about when you say "your organization." If you're talking about Amnesty International, well, it's not my organization any more than it's yours. I'm not affiliated with them in any way. Perhaps you did an internet search for them and ended up here somehow. I don't know. But please be a little more careful next time.

As for the substance of your comments, "Face it you [presumably Amnesty Internationa] and the ACLU are doing everything to undermine the very foundation freedom is base upon," it's hard to argue with this. You don't offer a single piece of evidence to support this assertion, and so it's a little hard to discuss. If that's your opinion, well, it's a free country, and you're welcome to it. But one would hope that you would examine the available evidence a little more carefully before passing judgment.