A Secretary General Irene Khan, in releasing the report, referred to Guantanamo Bay as "the gulag of our times..."

Now, accusations such as these, delivered by a respected and venerable organization such as Amnesty International are serious business.

So how did the administration and the conservative spin machine respond? Call for immediate impartial investigations? Reaffirm the US commitment to the Rule of Law? Denounce practices which violate human rights?

Of course not.

As Matthew Rothschild points out, they chose to shoot the messenger and change the subject. Just as they did with Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke, General Shinseki, General Zinni, Hans Blix, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Newsweek, and anyone else that questions their misguided war of error.

Our President, the Dissembler in Chief, led the charge against Amnesty. Or, as he would put it, he was working "to catapult the propaganda." After all, everyone knows that those who criticize this administration "hate America" and they are "trained to... disassemble..." The President apparently believes, "That means not tell the truth."

In fencing terms, what you have here is a parry, followed by a riposte and this administration and their conservative cronies have used this basic strategy as adroitly as any Teutonic Knight ever did.

But it seems to be their only move, and the miracle is that it continues to work over and over again. Of course, it probably helps that the national press corps acts, for the most part, like a bunch of slack-jawed yokels at a three-card-Monty festival every time the White House spinmeisters trot out this tired old tactic.

Consider the infamous Newsweek story about abuse of the Koran. We now know, from Pentagon reports, that the Koran was, in fact, abused at Gitmo. But Newsweek, caving into a righteous right-wing firestorm, retracted the story within days of reporting it.

Note, the headline became and remains the issue surrounding Newsweek’s sourcing of the story, not the accuracy of the story or the behavior of American interrogators.

Parry, riposte, and a defensive cringe by the national press. Dan Rather Redux.

Enter the Amnesty International Report highlighting this administration’s egregious human rights violations. Within hours, conservatives worked themselves up into a patriotic lather and quickly turned the discussion into a debate about neutrality, impartiality, and a semantic argument over the use of the word "gulag."

As usual, the mainstream press took the hook and ignored the real story: the tragic metamorphosis of the US from a "shining city on a hill" – a beacon from which the light of liberty, justice, and freedom blazed out upon the world – to a country whose recent behavior places it among the world’s international thugs.

And so now, the press coverage focuses on the "gulag" statement, and not on the immoral and illegal actions of the US. It focuses on whether Amnesty International has lost it’s "neutrality," or, even more absurdly, on whether Gitmo, Bagram Air Base, and our various rendition partners actually constitute a gulag comparable to the Soviet Union’s.

Parry, riposte, defensive cringe.

Amnesty may be guilty of semantic exaggeration; but the Bush administration is guilty of extraordinary renditions (aka kidnapping), lying to and otherwise deceiving the American people, torture, and violation of national and international laws.

Which issue is more important – whether America’s human rights record has indeed become atrocious, or whether Amnesty International is guilty of hyperbole? If the mainstream media is any guide, Amnesty’s inapt metaphor wins hands down.

But Mr. Bush's illegal activities have resulted in an exponential increase in the number of Muslims who hate America, loss of our credibility and prestige abroad, loss of potential allies in the real war on terror -- and ultimately loss of the most powerful tactic we have in that war, winning the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims.

Meanwhile, Ms. Khan's overstatement has resulted in ... what? World-wide attention to the full scale erosion of the rule of law under the Bush administration.

The bottom line? Under Mr. Bush, the US has joined the bad guys; we've crossed a line and we are behaving like international thugs. Under Mr. Bush our shining beacon is turning into cheap and tawdry neon sign proclaiming, "We’re not the worst."

It’s all part of a continuing trend with this administration. Aside from condoning torture and committing war crimes, the President and his administration rejected the international court and the land mine treaty, dropped out of Kyoto, scuttled the ABM treaty, undermined the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, eviscerated the treaties banning biological and chemical weapons, and militarized space.

Sure, "gulag" is a loaded term, and Stalin’s crimes were far worse than ours, but why is that the story?

Rather than debating – if not celebrating – the fact that we're not the worst international thugs ever to walk the planet, while calling Ms. Khan to task over semantics, why isn’t the press drawing needed attention to the fact that we've crossed that line, extinguished our beacon and joined the dark side?

Isn't that, in the end, the story? Couldn't it be that it isn't Ms Khan who's lost her neutrality, but the press who have lost theirs, and her zealous language is nothing more than frustration at the media’s wholesale sell-out of their First Amendment responsibilities?

And in the final analysis, isn’t the Conservative spin machine’s argument something like: "Well, sure he slaps the wife and kids around a bit, but you shoulda seen what this other guy used to do ..." ?

Hyperbole can serve a useful rhetorical purpose, and at worst, it's an exaggeration. Criminal activity conducted by those with power is criminal activity. At best, it is destructive of civil society, civil rights and the international rule of law.

But until the press stops allowing itself to get spun, we’re not likely to hear much about that.

So, for now, maybe we should all join hands, and repeat, "USA; USA: Say it loud, say it proud; we’re not the worst!"

Words to live by.

John Atcheson has written extensively on politics and policy and his writing has appeared in the Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The San Jose Mercury News. He has over 30 years experience in government and with the nation's premier think tanks. He can be reached at atchman@comcast.net

###