William Schultz, the director of Amnesty International USA makes a strong and convincing argument that the left has ignored the real threat to human rights in the world.
In his new book, “Tainted Legacy: 9/11 and the Ruin of Human Rights,” Schulz argues that rising global terrorism requires the left “to rethink some of our most sacred assumptions.” A vigorous defense of human and civil liberties, while essential to spreading democracy worldwide, is not enough to stop terrorists from blowing up airplanes or shopping malls, he says. And that presents the left with a problem, because some of the tools needed to fight terror, such as stricter border controls or beefed up intelligence work — and, perhaps, war against states that support terrorists — chafe against traditional leftist values.
I don’t agree with everything Schultz says, but his arguments are powerful. He’s right in pointing out that the debate over Iraq from the left had nothing to do with the Iraqi people – it was all about American power. Dominique de Villepin or Ted Kennedy didn’t give a damn about what was going on in Iraq – they were more interested in undermining the Bush Administration.
There’s something callous about such a position, as it elevates petty political concerns above very real issues of human rights. Those who see Israel or the United States as bigger threats to world peace are making an argument that countries that are democracies are somehow more threatening than Saddam Hussein’s brutal Ba’athist dictatorship, the living hell that is North Korea where people are forced to resort to cannibalism to survive, the horrendous regime that terrorises Burma, or even the totalitarian regime of Castro’s Cuba. Such an argument is beyond ignorant, it speaks of a complete abandonment of reason and common sense in favor of a base and disgusting form of hatred and prejudice.
Fortunately Mr. Schultz is actively defending Amnesty’s mission of human rights by continuing to focus on places where there are real human rights abuses going on, such as the horrendous condition of prisoners in Russian jails, the oppression in Burma, and the horrors of constant tribal warfare that has decimated Africa. While Schultz and I disagree on many things from the efficacy of the PATRIOT Act to forming an international consensus on Iraq, he is completely right in noting than an expansion of human rights is critical towards acheiving peace not only in Iraq but across the globe as well.
Actually, Jay (you sanctimonious little @#$@%!), most of the criticism the Left had before the war was focused on the issue of the civilian toll of a major combat engagement in Iraq. The reason that people played up the risk to American servicemen and women in arguing against the war is that it was necessary to show that we not only had the best interests of the Iraqis at heart, but also of our soldiers and servicemembers. The same goes for arguments from the Right–we just had differing views about what would be best.
And I think you do a disservice to both sides to trivialize the complexities of the debate that happened prior to the war. The Right had to overcome the obstacles of showing that civilian casualties and a difficult military occupation were necessary for American security (not, at that time, for Iraqi security, but let’s not split hairs). The Left had the challenge of showing that it was better to leave a murderous and ruthless man in control of Iraq than to risk those casualties and our soldiers. There’s a lot of nuance here, and a lot of gray areas. The people that ultimately mattered were in fact the moderates, who at first reluctantly supported war as a necessary recourse and now are weary of the occupation and are questioning the validity of the motives for war.
But try not to lump everybody on the Left into a group with only one argument, and I’ll try to extend the same courtesy to y’all.
Most arguments about the war from the left were related to this being the wrong war at the wrong time, justified by questionable (and since proven to be erroneous) criteria. Certainly there was one-dimensional “no blood for oil” platitudes from the left, but those are about as intellectually relevant as the premise that the war was waged as a means of liberating an oppressed state.
JR,
…most of the criticism the Left had before the war was focused on the issue of the civilian toll of a major combat engagement in Iraq.
Their concern is insincere. How many demonstrations were/are organized by these leftist groups against North Korea? In support of Iranian students? Against Belgium for failing to prevent genocide in Rwanda?
Interestingly, Ariel Sharon was let go as a minister of defense over his failure to prevent a massacre conducted by Lebanese Christians against Muslims. He has been branded Hitler, murderer, etc. Yet nobody is saying a word regarding the Belgian (why don’t we know his name?) who was responsible for letting hundreds of thousands of Rwandans. How come?
The agenda is clear. Leftists only demonstrate against the US (Big Satan, Israel is the little Satan).
Oh, Stan, how ignorant you are and how sanctimonious you get because of that ignorance!
How dare you presume to know what my motives were in protesting the war? How dare you assume that my interests in preventing carnage and death come from political desires and not from such “left-wing ideals” as Matthew 19:19, “Jesus said: love thy neighbor as thyself.” That’s a hell of a passage, and this coming from a Jew. Or maybe you’re forgetting how incorrect YOUR arguments that this war was fought for national liberation are, since the reasons for this war were much more than a single issue–that’s merely the only issue to have so far endured.
Don’t try to play off “Leftists” when you don’t know shit about the subject at hand. Maybe, if you had half a brain, you’d understand the reasons for NOT demonstrating in support of Iranian students (the quickest way to kill that push for democratization is to make it look US-backed, dumbass). And, while we’re on the subject, how many rallies in support of action against North Korea have YOU attended?
And for the record, you moron, most people on the Left were pushing intervention in Rwanda, but the CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES was not going to go along with it. You remember Congress, right? It ain’t our guys running it. When the UN and Belgian forces were at Nyanza, there was not enough support for them to guarantee the safety of their troops and the civilian population…guess what nation could have provided the support there, and in Srebrenica, but didn’t because of the right wing’s vocal opposition?
Sharon was let go for being too enthusiastic about his work, specifically that whole “killing massive numbers of Lebanese civilians” thing. He was a liability to the peace process then, and little has changed.
Stan, if you want to be dumb, that’s fine. If you want to attack half this country by impugning motives that you do not understand or care to understand, that’s also fine–you have the Constitutional right to look like a clueless asshole. But don’t try pulling that ad hominem bullshit here unless you have something to back it up with, and quit putting up straw men in place of a real argument, because it just makes you look incompetent.
Jay, I have a certain respect for you, as most of your arguments stem from principle and not from demagoguery or, in Stan LS’s case, abject bullshit. The increasingly vituperative nature of discussion in America is starting to get to me, as it is everyone else. As you can see, sometimes it even sets me off a bit. All I’m saying is that if the best argument against my first post that Stan LS can offer is “but y’all didn’t really mean it,” then I think you should probably jump in here an try offering a REAL rebuttal, as opposed to the talking points bullshit that I just had to deal with and that cheapens the process of political dialogue.
JR,
How dare you presume to know what my motives were in protesting the war?
Dude. You are foaming at the mouth. Let me refer to what you said (I quoted it in my post):
…most of the criticism the Left had before the war was focused on the issue of the civilian toll of a major combat engagement in Iraq.
The Left. Unless you claim to be The Left, I am assuming that that referred to The Left as a whole. If you wanted to make this personal, you should’ve said “I” instead of “the Left”.
Maybe, if you had half a brain, you’d understand the reasons for NOT demonstrating in support of Iranian students (the quickest way to kill that push for democratization is to make it look US-backed, dumbass).
I see. So the fact that we favor democracies is some kind of a secret? Cool. I guess you guys all got together and decided not to demonstrate against the Mullahs (because you really, really wanted to). You resisted that temptation. Kudos.
By the way, how come there are no human shields in Iran protecting the students?
And, while we’re on the subject, how many rallies in support of action against North Korea have YOU attended?
Hey, bud, I am not the one here trying to pretend to cry my eyes out regarding the “civilian toll”.
And for the record, you moron, most people on the Left were pushing intervention in Rwanda,
Holy, cow! You mean Rwanda wasn’t about oil?
When the UN and Belgian forces were at Nyanza, there was not enough support for them to guarantee the safety of their troops
Wow! Me and my half a brain seem to know more then you? Eh?
A 1,000-page report, adopted by a special committee of the Belgian Senate, says Belgian and UN officials turned a blind eye to the dangers facing peacekeepers as Rwanda sank into a genocide that left at least half a million dead, mostly members of the minority Tutsi tribe.
Turning blind eye? Get your facts straight.
Sharon was let go for being too enthusiastic about his work, specifically that whole “killing massive numbers of Lebanese civilians” thing
Ah. I am a moron and you don’t know the facts. Sharon was let go because he was supposed to “foresee” and thus prevent the massacre that took place when Lebanese Christians entered a Muslim village. Get your facts straight.
If you want to attack half this country by impugning motives that you do not understand or care to understand
LOL. You already showed off your stupidity in your very post. Get your facts straight.
don’t try pulling that ad hominem bullshit
You called me “moron”, “half a brain”… That’s rich.
So… What *is* the name of the person responsible for Belgians turning the blind eye? Oh, who cares.. He’s not american/israeli, right?
Get your facts straight.
cheapens the process of political dialogue
What cheapens the dialogue is you trying to argue without facts. Go check why Sharon got let go.
Sharon resigned in 1983 from the Begin government in response to a public outcry concerning the handling of civilians during the conflict–namely, he didn’t seek to protect certain groups under his authority, while extending protection to others. Characterize it however the hell you want, but try to at least keep your facts straight.
Had Rwanda been about oil (again, way to mischaracterize the protests against Iraq as only being about one issue!) there would have been no calls for intervention. Rwanda was about millions of people dying in what is actually World War 3 and few outside of the region doing what should have beenn done to Nazi Germany–engaging the aggressors forcefully and securing the safety of the targeted. I apply that same reasoning to Iraq as well, and would have supported the ouster of Saddam had we done it before 1990, when it would have made a difference, or immediately following the Gulf War, when anti-Saddam factions inside Iraq were still excited about American intervention. The second Gulf War was fought under a different dynamic.