The G-Word

The has produced a rare moment of editorial-page agreement between D.C.'s two top papers. The Washington Post: "Turning a report on prisoner detention into another excuse for Bush-bashing or America-bashing undermines Amnesty's legitimate criticisms of U.S. policies and weakens the force of its investigations of prison systems in closed societies."

The Washington Times: "There are no defensible comparisons between Guantanamo, or any other U.S. detention center, and the gulag, and the sooner that Amnesty apologizes the better. . . . The tragedy here is that the world needs credible organizations ready to hold governments accountable for human rights abuses. Amnesty International used to be just such an organization. But how will it be able to denounce the real monsters of the world, if now they can just point to the United States as the ultimate abuser of human rights? By waving the bloody shirt, it will be a long time before Amnesty can be trusted again."

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line analyzes Amnesty's motive:

"It was a publicity stunt. . . . Dana Milbank . . . .chortled that Schulz, in effect, is laughing his way to the bank, with traffic on Amnesty International's web site up sixfold, donations quintupled and new memberships doubled. However, as the co-proprietor of a web site, I know that the trick isn't getting 'em to visit, it's keeping 'em coming back. So Amnesty International will have to follow its own tough act. . . .

"Not that long ago, Amnesty International represented the gold standard on the issue of human rights abuses. It has now forfeited that position apparently in order to get on television, obtain a temporary spike in contributions, and (of course) scratch the anti-Bush itch of its leaders, including Kerry campaign contributor Schulz."

Andrew Sullivan observes that former Clintonite Sid Blumenthal got there first, with this piece in London's Guardian headlined "This is the New Gulag." "The moral idiocy of Amnesty International comparing the serious issues in Guantanamo with Stalin's monstrous crimes didn't come out of thin air."

E.J. Dionne has also weighed in: "Why do President Bush's critics make life so easy for him?. . . . What's maddening is that by reaching for the dramatic, overwrought and, yes, outrageous gulag metaphor, Amnesty's Khan let Bush slip right by the questions raised by American practices in Guantanamo and whether Guantanamo's problems are helping the 'people who hate America' in their battle for world opinion."

Dick Morris, in his New York Post column, sees a broader danger for the White House:

"The left has launched a powerful new offensive against the War on Terror by trying to convince Americans -- and Muslims around the world -- that there are rampant abuses at Guantanamo Naval Base where hundreds of terror suspects are being held without attorneys or trials.

"If Bush is not careful, his entire administration -- and the popularity of the war that has come to define it -- will rest on the actions of some kid with a gun guarding some terrorist he hates in a dark jail cell at Guantanamo."

Meanwhile, a Democratic position seems to be emerging:

"Former President Jimmy Carter on Tuesday called for the United States to shut down its Guantanamo Bay prison to demonstrate the country's commitment to protecting human rights," reports the AP.