The title of this thread is Guantanamo Concentration Camp?… Concentration camps were operated by the Nazis in WW2. Alien, the originator of this thread, believes that Bush is a Nazi. Maybe someone is not a “reasonable” person…
As I said, the issue re the camps is one that reasonable minds can differ… But, I’m not certain at all that I would characterize the treatment that the detainees receive at Gitmo as “evil”.
I know that you’re only making a point. But, in order to make my point, I’ll counter that none of the detainees at Gitmo have received a bullet in the head. I think the question of what to do with the detainees is a difficult one… it is difficult to know what the “right thing” in this case is.
And let’s not forget that politics are involved too. Can you imagine the screaming the Democrats would do if any of the Gitmo detainees were to be let free and subsequently carried out an act of terrorism in the US or on US targets anywhere in the world? I can.
I disagree. If what you state above is true, then Abraham Lincoln was just a big, blow-hard illusion.
The title of the thread is “Guantanamo Concentration Camp?”
If you follow the U.S. legal custom of due process, you will be forced to let most of the prisoners go. How do you plan on collecting evidence within a reasonable time frame to hold trials for over 600 people, most of whom come from a country on the other side of the world and speak a difficult language that the U.S. has few interpreters of? It’s impossible. You can’t do it.
You just got done saying Guantanamo is not a concentration camp, but now you say it’s evil?
It’s not evil. It’s an expedient measure that puts the security of the United States before a legal custom meant almost exclusively for U.S. citizens.
Spook, you change your mind from post to post. You just got done telling me that America was economically and militarily powerful because of its principles, including its democracy. Now you’re telling me that democracy is a lot of trouble. Why don’t you make up your mind as to which it is rather than shoot from the hip every time you post?
One sloppy cliche after another. “Do the right thing.” “Justice is a whole lot more work than a bullet to the head.” “Live up to your principles.” “Don’t turn your back on what made us great and strong.” “The enemy can even be us.”
Never the concrete example with you, Spook, just vague cliches.
Please. Grown-ups are well aware that compromises must sometimes be made even with the most important principles. Principles are a guide to living, not a prison for which the devout build around themselves to await some unfortunate outcome.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. When he was accused of being a dictator and upbraided by Chief Justice Taney, Lincoln asked rhetorically if only the laws he was responsible for were to be upheld. His point was valid and deserves remembering by those who are genuinely interested in learning from history instead of using it as an excuse to braid together cliches.
(BAIT! Every nerve in spook’s body, every instinct, tells him Tigerman has just laid bait to catch a meal.
(But what could it be? Bait? But how could Abraham Lincoln be bait? He was a great American; what harm could there be in stepping forward and standing up for him, too? Think, spook, think!
(Yes! That’s it! Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during wartime. Good God. Tigerman was going to spring the trap and stand by chortling that George Bush is none other than a modern Abraham Lincoln with his Camp Delta whilst you lay there writhing like a trapped fox.
(Leap away, spook. Don’t take the bait! Save yourself.)
Spook leaps away, bounding for the underbrush. Tigerman once again goes hungry, forced to root around for a meal of ground squirrels and mice.
Bush is a piker next to Lincoln when comparing how the two dismissed legal rights for some under their power. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for five years, arrested 13,000 Americans without legal writ, ignored the Chief Justice’s ruling that he reinstate habeas corpus, and basically did whatever he needed to do to win the war:
As the Civil War started, in the very beginning of Lincoln’s presidential term, a group of “Peace Democrats” proposed a peaceful resolution to the developing Civil War by offering a truce with the South, and forming a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect States’ rights. The proposal was ignored by the Unionists of the North and not taken seriously by the South. However, the Peace Democrats, also called copperheads by their enemies, publicly criticized Lincoln’s belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North’s military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln’s violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.
Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress. President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney’s ruling.
Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.
(BAIT! Every nerve in spook’s body, every instinct, tells him Tigerman has just laid bait to catch a meal.
(But what could it be? Bait? But how could Abraham Lincoln be bait? He was a great American; what harm could there be in stepping forward and standing up for him, too? Think, spook, think!
(Yes! That’s it! Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during wartime. Good God. Tigerman was going to spring the trap and stand by chortling that George Bush is none other than a modern Abraham Lincoln with his Camp Delta whilst you lay there writhing like a trapped fox.
(Leap away, spook. Don’t take the bait! Save yourself.)
Spook leaps away, bounding for the underbrush. Tigerman once again goes hungry, forced to root around for a meal of ground squirrels and mice.[/quote]
It’s a fair comparison, Spook. You are always invoking U.S. history, the Founding Fathers, and American principles. But you are unable to show any dramatic difference in Bush’s conduct with the past conduct of other presidents during major crises.
Unless Tigerman is quicker than me with the ‘submit’ button, I don’t think he’s yet made the comparison – so the trap remains open.
If George Bush had established Camp Delta 150 years ago, maybe the comparison would be apt, but the principle of habeas corpus is well-established and well-defined today. That, of course, is why President Bush avoided US soil and with it the US court system.
The principle was well-established by the middle of the nineteenth century. Why do you think the Chief Justice of the United States upbraided Lincoln on his suspension of habeas corpus at that time and told the president to reinstate it? And Lincoln ignored him.
Yes, and it’s to Bush’s credit that he did so. He didn’t want to spark a constitutional crisis. The U.S. courts have also obliged President Bush by letting him have his way at Guantanamo.
I think you all missed my point. If the US is free to ‘mold’ its constitutional principles as you say, CF, how can the US then turn around and demand boldly and presumptuously the same principles that they themselves abused, must be upheld in other countries?
And what are those principles? This is the issue that keeps getting foggier and foggier. What principles, and whose integrity are we protecting? Daltongang says Americans. But America isn’t completely alone in this. They have UK on their side. And there are lots of Arab Americans, Muslim Americans as well as Britis. So, do you believe they’re terrorists by connection to faith or ethnicity alone? So they’re NOT Americans? So America (and UK) are against the rest of the world? Where do you draw the line? If I don’t support Bush, am I now ‘one of them’?
I cannot abide the ‘us against them’ philosophy so many folks take on this matter. It mucks it all up and side steps the real issues.
And as for American principles, when America is regarding its principles as “fighting for democracy”, yet finding ways to dodge taking responsibility for their present actions and spitting in the face of democracy, doesn’t it send a mixed message to the rest of the world? Which is why I included the Russian article previously, Blueface.
So, I’d recommend if we’re going to try to back up claims with “facts” from now on, maybe we should try to avoid too much bipartisan media referencing and look for apolitical studies, research documents, or foreign press articles, to get a clearer picture of the situation.
Oh… yes, I did make the comparison. The trap is closed…
Lincoln did what he did when times got tough in order to preserve the Union. Bush is doing what he is doing now in order to protect the US.
There is a clear comparison.
CF drew out the only possible contrast when he explained the difference in the numbers of those detained by Lincoln and of those detained by Bush. But in doing so, Bush actually comes out looking much better than Lincoln, according to the standards you are setting.
Thus, if you think Bush is bad… what do you think of Lincoln?
[quote=“Alien”]I think you all missed my point. If the US is free to ‘mold’ its constitutional principles as you say, CF, how can the US then turn around and demand boldly and presumptuously the same principles that they themselves abused, must be upheld in other countries?
[/quote]
I sure did miss that. what exactly are these “same principles?” we were talking about a narrow issue of legal status of prisoners at guantanamo, your connection is tenuous.
[quote]And what are those principles? This is the issue that keeps getting foggier and foggier. What principles, and whose integrity are we protecting? Daltongang says Americans. But America isn’t completely alone in this. They have UK on their side. And there are lots of Arab Americans, Muslim Americans as well as Britis. So, do you believe they’re terrorists by connection to faith or ethnicity alone? So they’re NOT Americans? So America (and UK) are against the rest of the world? Where do you draw the line? If I don’t support Bush, am I now ‘one of them’?
I cannot abide the ‘us against them’ philosophy so many folks take on this matter. It mucks it all up and side steps the real issues. [/quote]
It plainly is an us against them situation, Alien. There are people out there who would like to kill Americans purely because they are Americans. That makes us, us. whether you are Arab-American or hate Bush is irrelevant to that in my view.
[quote]And as for American principles, when America is regarding its principles as “fighting for democracy”, yet finding ways to dodge taking responsibility for their present actions and spitting in the face of democracy, doesn’t it send a mixed message to the rest of the world? Which is why I included the Russian article previously, Blueface.
[/quote]
America has never been a democracy in say the scandinavian mold and has never made any bones about that. the world knows that. having said that i disagree strongly that we are “spitting in the face of democracy”
Facts provide the clearest picture. It doesn’t matter where facts are reported … so long as the facts can be verified.[/quote]
If that’s the agreed upon rule here, fine. It makes it more fun, of course to be extreme (especially when one agrees with the lesser-evil side, Lib or Con smear campaign), but it does not support arguments well and one may have difficulty analyzing ‘factual’ information using such slip-shod methods. The media is widely known NOT to follow a genre-driven hedgemony of evidencing their ‘facts’.
So, in simpler terms, in academic la-la land, the idea of using a ragbag article from partisan media is frowned upon (judged harshly) while one is engaged in research writing. I’m concerned whether this should be the case here, as well. Maybe this is for another thread.
I think you all missed my point. If the US is free to ‘mold’ its constitutional principles as you say, CF, how can the US then turn around and demand boldly and presumptuously the same principles that they themselves abused, must be upheld in other countries?[/quote]
This is a good question. The answer is that we haven’t always been that bold and presumptuous, and we are much more discriminating now about how we criticize others than your comments suggest. Read the words of this John Quincy Adams speech:
"And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?
Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.
She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…
She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit…
[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
This idea embodied in Adams’ speech has been an important isolationalist theme in U.S. thinking towards the world for almost all of the first 150 years of our country. After the Second World War, however, the U.S. was in a new position requiring it to lead. That leadership sometimes made it necessary for the U.S. to exhort other countries to open their markets, free their economies, and establish democracy.
But, even at this time, self-preservation always trumped the principles we espoused.
We’ve arrested our own citizens in times of war for no better reason than they have protested the war. We teamed up with Stalin to beat Hitler. We’ve invaded sovereign countries and dealt with unsavory characters in order to counter Communism. Many people, including myself, feel that these compromises were necessary and to the greater good of the U.S. and its allies.
As to your first question, in this case, it’s obviously certain legal principles. As to the last clause of your last question, I’m not sure what you are talking about. Protecting integrity?
We’re at war. It’s important for subtle moral clarifications and principle-mongering to be put aside.
Arab- and Muslim-Americans are Americans, and they are deserving of the full protection of the rights of every American. However, some of them have supported groups closely allied with the Islamic terrorists. Thus, it’s understandable that some intelligence agencies, given the nature of the threat, would need to closely watch their activities.
Now it’s my turn to ask questions. What are these real issues, in your opinion?
You need to be able to hold two ideas in your mind in their proper order. First is that the U.S. is in this war for its security. That is its prime concern. It is not primarily fighting for democracy. Second, the U.S. can still manage to do some good things for others while it removes threats to itself. There is nothing contradictory about removing a perceived threat and establishing a democracy in Iraq. At some time later, there may be, but at this time there is not. So the mixed message is not mixed, but simply a two-layered message. Since you say you like subtlety, I think you should appreciate this nuance.
I’m pretty well informed, Alien. I read a wide variety of information from a wide variety of sources.
[quote=“daltongang”]
I sure did miss that. what exactly are these “same principles?”[/quote]
That’s what I was asking you. What are these principles? Cold front? Care to elucidate? I outlined in another thread some of the principles of global ethics, according to scholars. Are American principles the same or different from those?
What is the legal status of the prisoners on Guantanamo? The US doesn’t know. Do you?
Us against them. Us against them.
Who is US? Americans? What about the good people of Britain who’re America’s ‘best friends in the world’? Them too? Taiwanese people?
pbs.org/newshour/bb/military … _1-22.html
Saudi Arabia. They’re Saudis. THEM are the Saudis! :?
Dear Daltongang, et others, the question of US and THEM and RIGHT and WRONG is surely not as BLACK and WHITE as you seem to think.
Don’t take it for granted, please, that you’re one of “US”. You live in Taiwan. Some may think you are clearly one of “THEM”.
It’s absurd to draw a line, and you all know it.
Naming this Guantanamo Concentration Camp came about due to discussions about the characteristics it has in common with one. Such as what laws can protect those imprisoned within. Concentration camps have not only been synonomous with Hitler’s death camps. The US had camps and detained Japanese during WWII. Perhaps the atrocities may not have been as severe as those of Hitler’s death camps, the point is, they did have profound effects on those who were incarcerated for no fault other than being Japanese ethnicity. No matter how many generations back. I grew up believing America was ashamed of that. Was that my ‘liberal’ education?
Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: concentration camp
Function: noun
Date: 1901
: a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined
Cambridge:
concentration camp noun [C]
a prison where people are kept in extremely bad conditions, especially for political reasons:
Your Dictionary:
concentration camp
n.
A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.
A place or situation characterized by extremely harsh conditions.
Alien,
So you are not sure if the Nazi camps were worse than the American camps for Japanese? I think that is unfair to Jewish people.
Anyway, don’t want to gang up on you. I understand what you are saying, just don’t like people trivializing the Holocaust.
Now it’s my turn to ask questions. What are these real issues, in your opinion? [/quote]
Who is living? Who is dying? Why? For what reason? What do we ultimately hope to achieve?
I know you do. I’m sure others do as well. I was questioning the reliability of some sources as being truly plausible. Oh, and thanks for quoting a founding father.
[quote=“Alien”][quote=“daltongang”]
I sure did miss that. what exactly are these “same principles?”[/quote]
That’s what I was asking you. What are these principles? Cold front? Care to elucidate? I outlined in another thread some of the principles of global ethics, according to scholars. Are American principles the same or different from those?[/quote]
you got me, I’m not the one trying to draw a connection between the us treatment of prisoners at guantanamo and the us “turning around and demanding boldly and presumptuously the same principles that they themselves abused”
What is the legal status of the prisoners on Guantanamo? The US doesn’t know. Do you? [/quote]
well if the US don’t know I sure don’t.
[quote]
Us against them. Us against them.
Who is US? Americans? What about the good people of Britain who’re America’s ‘best friends in the world’? Them too? Taiwanese people?
pbs.org/newshour/bb/military … _1-22.html
Saudi Arabia. They’re Saudis. THEM are the Saudis! :?
Dear Daltongang, et others, the question of US and THEM and RIGHT and WRONG is surely not as BLACK and WHITE as you seem to think.
Don’t take it for granted, please, that you’re one of “US”. You live in Taiwan. Some may think you are clearly one of “THEM”.
It’s absurd to draw a line, and you all know it. [/quote]
The line is clear in my mind. I am an American. A group of fanatical terrorists would like to kill me and my family because of that fact. it couldn’t be blacker or whiter. absurd? live in Taiwan? what?
Alien,
So you are not sure if the Nazi camps were worse than the American camps for Japanese? I think that is unfair to Jewish people.
Anyway, don’t want to gang up on you. I understand what you are saying, just don’t like people trivializing the Holocaust.[/quote]
I am far from trivializing, Almas. Sorry to give you the impression I was, although I don’t believe it was evidenced in my post when I chose to use vague contextual marker ‘perhaps’ in my syntax. I do believe that the Japanese who were detained during WWII suffered much more than people imagine, even if they weren’t ‘evacuated’ as the poor souls of the Holocaust were. I was in Anne Frank’s house last summer and was moved far more than I was prepared to be. I was also in Prague’s Jewish cemetary, which was to me, one of the most unfathomable places on earth. I would never trivialize the Holocaust! Or oppression of Jews.
[quote]Cold Front: We’re at war. It’s important for subtle moral clarifications and principle-mongering to be put aside.
Arab- and Muslim-Americans are Americans, and they are deserving of the full protection of the rights of every American. However, some of them have supported groups closely allied with the Islamic terrorists. Thus, it’s understandable that some intelligence agencies, given the nature of the threat, would need to closely watch their activities.[/quote]
the president of the US has the power to declare a state of emergency. in such a situation the constitution is suspendend and presidential decree is the first, last and only word.
such is no surprise.
what may shock you is that the US has been operating under such since 1933 (or the korean war, depending upon which fiat you like better).
america has never been a democracy and never will be. america isn’t even a republic. it is a dictatorship swapped between gangs.
ownership of gold illegal? of course!
a president killed months after authorizing the gov’t to actually take control of the monetary supply? oh, yes.
direct election of the president, such as taiwan enjoys? never.
register for the draft when involuntary servitude is banned? of course!
land of the free?
free to be afraid is more like it.
