Guantanamo Concentration Camp?

[MaPoSquid]

[quote=“spook”]Lest we forget:

On August 10, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. The Act was passed by Congress to provide a Presidential apology and symbolic payment of $20,000.00 to the internees, evacuees, and persons of Japanese ancestry who lost liberty or property because of discriminatory action by the Federal government during World War II.[/quote]
And lest YOU forget, the reason Reagan (not Carter, not Clinton – why is it that Republicans never get CREDIT for doing the decent thing, while Democrats never get BLAMED for invariably failing to do the decent thing?) and the U.S. apologized was because the Japanese internees hadn’t done anything wrong.

UNLIKE, oh, say, the currently-detained unlawful combatants, who were captured when they attacked U.S. troops, plotted terrorist acts against American civilians, and otherwise engaged in belligerent activities.

Now, if those Japanese had engaged in such activities, they would have probably been executed, just like the Germans who tried to infiltrate the U.S. to cause sabotage here during WWII:
dhr.dos.state.fl.us/museum/wwii/ … ?panel=3_1

[quote=“Museum of Florida History website”]German Saboteurs in Florida:

Florida became the scene of a bizarre plot in June 1942 when four saboteurs came ashore from German submarine U-584 near Ponte Vedra Beach. They buried boxes of explosives and other equipment in the dunes for future use. The men then boarded a bus for Jacksonville, before splitting into two groups that traveled to New York and Chicago. The agents were to join with four other saboteurs, who had landed on New York’s Long Island, and then planned to bomb key railroads, bridges and factories producing goods for the war. Fortunately, one of the New York band had misgivings about his mission and surrendered them to the FBI. By June 27 all of the men had been apprehended. A military court later tried the eight Germans and found them guilty of spying. Six of the spies, including all of the Florida group, were executed.[/quote]
In today’s terms, this means that Manuel Padilla, former Puerto Rican gang member and prison inmate turned al-Qaeda/Taliban terrorist supporter and cause celebre’ for the “antiwar” Left, would be executed rather than merely being detained. Here’s hoping they raffle or auction off the right to pull the trigger.

[MaPoSquid]

opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004338

[quote=“Rivkin and Casey, in the WSJ”]The continuing detention of captured al Qaeda and Taliban members at Guantanamo is fast becoming the favored cause of international activists opposed to the aggressive prosecution of the war on terror.

The ICRC’s primary complaint is that “after more than 18 months of captivity, the internees still have no idea about their fate.” As the ICRC knows very well, this is the case with respect to all captured enemy combatants in every war. The laws of war permit such individuals to be held for the entire duration of the conflict–primarily to ensure that they cannot rejoin the fight. Contrary to the claims of the ICRC, other activist groups and even some U.S. allies, the detainees are not being held “indefinitely.” The length of their confinement is purely a function of how long the war lasts. The administration’s critics might reflect how Churchill would have reacted if, during the Battle of Britain, the ICRC had asked him how long his Axis prisoners would be held.

Significantly, as the ICRC also knows, the right to detain captured enemy combatants, without trial, without lawyers and without an established release schedule, stems from one of the most important humanitarian advances in the law of the armed conflict, dating back at least to the 17th century–the rise of an obligation to “give quarter.” Before this, except for a few wealthy or powerful individuals worth ransoming, captured soldiers could be, and very often were, put to the sword.

Of course, prolonged detention may well provoke, at least among some detainees, a sense of hopelessness, leading to suicide attempts. The laws of war, however, do not protect against such depression, which is the natural and predictable consequence of the detainees’ own choices–in particular the choice to join Osama bin Laden’s jihad.

The U.S., other law-abiding nations, U.N. relief workers and even the ICRC itself are facing an unprecedented threat from groups and individuals who have, in fact, repudiated the “law” of war as a Western fancy. They fight out of uniform, use human shields and routinely launch attacks against civilians. Such individuals, when captured, are entitled to humane treatment–to be fed, sheltered and clothed. They are not entitled to a timetable requiring their release or trial before the terrorist organization for which they fight has been destroyed.[/quote]

[Tigerman]

@Alien

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.

@tigerman

Facts provide the clearest picture. It doesn’t matter where facts are reported … so long as the facts can be verified.

[quote=“Alien”]If that’s the agreed upon rule here, fine. It makes it more fun, of course to be extreme … 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.[/quote]

So, does that mean you will be reading and posting something other than the comics for your political view and argument?

[Tigerman]

@Alien

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.

When you state or even imply that the detainees at Gitmo (and that is exactly what you did) are being treated in a way similar to the way the detainees in Nazi concentration camps were treated, you are indeed trivializing.

@Alien

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.

Perhaps. But, given your inability to distinguish between the ideology of the Republican party and Fascism, I have difficulty accepting your explanation now as anything more than an attempt to wriggle out of an situation where your implication has been shown to be absurd.

The definitions you provided for “concentration camp” included the aspect of “harsh treatment”. Nobody is claiming that the detainees at Gitmo are living at the Grand Hyatt… but you apparently are unable to distinguish between the treatment they receive there and the treatment the detainees in the Nazi concentration camps received.

So, now you bring up the Japanese internment camps. Look, the detainees there no doubt suffered. But, you’d have to be an idiot to imagine that they suffered anywhere near as much as the detainees in Nazi concentration camps.

@Alien

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.

One doesn’t need to visit the Anne Frank house to be “moved” regarding the Holocaust.

Oh, and it wasn’t only Jews who were oppressed in Nazi concentration camps.

Perhaps you should read something other than comics sometime. Then you might be able to distinguish between the ideology of the Republican party and Fascism, and between real concentration camps and simple camps where prisoners are detained pending a decision as to what to do with them (here’s a clue… the Nazis were not struggling with the question of what to do with the Jews and other detainees in their concentration camps and the Nazis were not providing the detainees in their concentration camps with Geneva accord protections/rights… and the only time the detainees in Nazi concentration camps saw a doctor was for… now you go figure it out).

[Comrade_Stalin]

Hey Alien, wouldn’t you like to take these tykes in and teach them the error of their ways? Just be sure not to turn your back on them while you’re wearing your thong!:lol:

Talibs, like these boys, are authorized to use weapons and whips on women if they decide any are breaking the Taliban’s repressive laws.

Buried Alive

Afghan Women Under the Taliban
by Jan Goodwin

February 27, 1998 --Thirty-thousand men and boys poured into the dilapidated Olympic sports stadium in Kabul, capital of Afghanistan. Street hawkers peddled nuts, biscuits and tea to the waiting crowd. The scheduled entertainment? They were there to see a young woman, Sohaila, receive 100 lashes, and to watch two thieves have their right hands amputated. Sohaila had been arrested walking with a man who was not a relative, a sufficient crime for her to be found guilty of adultery. Since she was single, it was punishable by flogging; had she been married, she would have been publicly stoned to death.

mosaic.echonyc.com/~onissues/su98goodwin.html

[Alien]

The only trivializing going on here is that of past American Concentration Camps.

[quote]In February, 1942, three months after Pearl Harbor, the United States took unprecedented action directed at its own population. Executive Order 9066 and Civilian Exclusion Order 5 decreed that over 120,000 Japanese Americans be removed from their homes in the “western defense zone” of the United States, and incarcerated in ten “internment” camps, which were located in isolated areas of Utah, Montana, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, and Idaho. These ten camps functioned as prison cities, with populations of 10,000 to 18,000 people in each camp.

With the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Americans in America were no longer seen by other Americans as industrious, immigrant neighbors but were transformed into enemy aliens overnight. There were no trials, no hearings to prove innocence or guilt. They were assumed to be the enemy and made prisoners, indefinitely incarcerated because of their race. Successful Japanese-Americans were informed that, according to Civilian Exclusion Order 5, they were required to liquidate all property, including homes, real estate, business holdings, and anything else that they could not carry themselves into the prison camps.[/quote]
csuohio.edu/art_photos/map.html

And present ones.

[quote]Thirty years ago, American prisoners of war were being brutalized in North Vietnam, and an outraged American government sought to shame their captors into respecting the Geneva Conventions. The treatment of Americans never came close to being humane. But, as Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) has said of his POW ordeal: “I’m certain we would have been a lot worse off if there had not been the Geneva Conventions around.”

That’s an important story to remember as Americans debate whether the Geneva Conventions should be upheld in the treatment of prisoners from Afghanistan. It reminds us that the issue is not about whether we sympathize with accused terrorists who probably don’t want our sympathy anyway. It is about protecting a set of rules that protect all people, including American servicemen and women taken captive in war. It is about preserving America’s right to complain when Americans are mistreated overseas.[/quote]
hrw.org/editorials/2002/uspow012802.htm

[quote]
People held as a result of conflict or armed violence are protected by international humanitarian law, and should be treated humanely.

The US Government refused to grant any internee in Guantanamo the status of Prisoner of War. All the same it said it would treat them “…humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.” (White House Fact Sheet )

The US agreed to let ICRC teams visit Guantanamo as an extension of work the organization had already begun in detention facilities in Afghanistan during and after the conflict in 2001.

The role of the ICRC, as an independent, non-judgemental humanitarian organisation, is to regularly assess the facilities, speak with the internees, and to maintain an ongoing dialogue with the US authorities in order to offer observations and make recommendations where appropriate. While the ICRC monitors the conditions of internment at Guantanamo, the responsibility for ensuring that persons held there are indeed treated humanely lies with the US authorities.[/quote]
icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.ns … enDocument

[quote]Red Cross seeks rights for detainees at Guantanamo
Associated Press

GENEVA

[Huang_Guang_Chen]

So is the American Red Cross wrong in their ‘investigation’?

No, not at all.

I have to tell you it’s quite amusing watching certain posters reflexively attempt to defend the indefensible.

Congratulations to the US right, you’ve allowed a bunch of “cave dwellers” to highlight your nation’s empty rhettoric on rights and democracy to a bemused global audience. Bravo!

HG

[Tigerman]

@Alien

The only trivializing going on here is that of past American Concentration Camps.

WTF? What are you talking about? Who is trivializing the plight of Japanese-Americans who were interned during WW2?

AFAIK, nobody is even attempting to justify what was done to the Japanese-Americans then.

You have trivialized the Holocaust by implying that the detainees currently held at Gitmo are living in a “concentration camp”. That is an absurdly stupid notion.

[Tigerman]

And another thing… the notion that the US refusal to grant US legal rights to the Gitmo detainees amounts to “inhumane” treatment is ludicrous.

The detainees are treated humanely. The treatment received by the detainees depends largely on their own behavior. Released detainees were earlier this year reported by the Boston Globe to have commented that the treatment they received at Gitmo was better than they had/would receive in their home countries. They were given eggs and meat daily, received medical checkups and treatment, were permitted to bathe and had access to reading materials and games.

How does that treatment compare with the treatment provided to the victims of the Nazi concentration camps?

[daltongang]

embarrassingly moronic comic

you are confused. are you even reading what i write? i’ll say it again nice and slow. someone wants to kill US because we are Americans. they are THEM. US AND THEM. terrorists could care less if you are an enlightened leftie, a cave dwelling rightie, Arab, or whatever. Like it or not, we are us, they are them.

[Huang_Guang_Chen]

You have trivialized the Holocaust by implying that the detainees currently held at Gitmo are living in a “concentration camp”. That is an absurdly stupid notion.

I thought that issue was killed off with the definitions of “concentration camp” Alien provided?

Concentration camp seems an apt description based on the dicitionary references provided. Here’s one more from the Merriam Webster:

[quote]One entry found for concentration camp.

Main Entry: concentration camp
Function: noun
Date: 1901
: a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined [/quote]

I’d actually say the use of “concentration camp” was quite generous given that the “prisoners” in “Gitmo” are neither officially POWs or refugees but rather illegally detained as “unlawful combatants” with no legal right to challenge their detention.

Failing to defend the indefensible you challenge the language. Come on lads, surely you can do better than this.

HG

[fred_smith]

To me this is a war between civilization and barbarism. How do I define that? Well, if you do not want

women’s rights
children’s rights
freedom of religion
free press
freedom of speech
democracy
rule of law
capitalism
modernity
education for all (women as well)
freedom to travel

then I guess there is no point to this discussion, but if any do, then we have to wonder why they are so busy defending those that would take this away with the call for greater tolerance and understanding of those that are not tolerant or understanding. Does anyone think that the 600 in Guantanamo are innocent bystanders? That these people would call for understanding as they shot you in the back of the neck? The inability to discern between the two cases shows just how messed up the sense of morality and ethics is in some people.

600 in Guantanamo are there because they do not follow the rules of engagement. Where are their uniforms? As such they are not entitled to be judged under the accords of the Geneva Convention. This is not about the mass rounding up of Arab Americans to be put into camps. The comparison hints at that and is again reflective of a very confused moral nature.

[Rascal]

A few facts thrown in. Don’t bother to draw me into the discussion because this ain’t an opinion:

Children held at Guantanamo Bay:
guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1 … 76,00.html
(Copy & paste link into browser if it doesn’t work)

In for the long haul:

A top administration official estimated it could take the better part of 10 years before many of those held at Guantanamo get out. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said most probably will be held until the war against terrorism ends.

abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Good … 30914.html

The Pentagon says Mistreatment Allegations ‘Just Plain False’
defenselink.mil/news/Jan2002 … 01223.html

Rumsfeld said the detainees are dangerous. He said at least one continues to make threats against Americans and another has bitten a guard.

Dangerous indeed.

Meanwhile in a camp in Iraq:
daily-times.com/artman/publi … 5483.shtml
boston.com/news/world/middle … l_hearing/

Furthermore:

US officials have admitted that suspects captured in the region are ‘softened up’ on their way to detention by brutal beatings from US military police and special forces soldiers. They are confined to tiny rooms, blindfolded and thrown into walls. They are tied up in painful positions, subjected to loud noises and deprived of sleep by having lights shone on them all day and night. Sometimes they are forced to stand for long periods in black hoods or wearing goggles which have been spray-painted so as to render them blind.

guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/st … 26,00.html

And I highly recommend to search for more information on ‘Diego Garcia’, the more secret “Guantanamo Bay” and the place where the US with help of the UK commits genocide:
infoplease.com/spot/dg.html

CF might consider this an insult, but then he said the truth can be insulting sometime, so live with it (and I suggest look up the defintion of genocide first).

[Huang_Guang_Chen]

The detainees are treated humanely. The treatment received by the detainees depends largely on their own behavior. Released detainees were earlier this year reported by the Boston Globe to have commented that the treatment they received at Gitmo was better than they had/would receive in their home countries

Come on Tigerman. So Gitmo offers better treatment than a Pakistani prison and this should be applauded?

[quote]Pakistani officials said the released men will be debriefed by intelligence services before being allowed to return to their families.

“We believe that they had no links with any militant groups, but we want to satisfy ourselves before allowing them to go home,” an official told the Associated Press news agency.

He added that efforts were under way to secure the release of other Pakistani prisoners at Guantanamo.

Eleven Pakistani inmates of the camp, most of them members of hardline Islamic groups sympathetic to the Taleban, were released in July.

One of the men, 51-year-old cleric Mohammed Sagheer, is suing the US and Pakistani governments for over $10m in damages.

He says he was mentally and physically tortured in Guantanamo. [/quote]

Daltongang:

someone wants to kill US because we are Americans. they are THEM. US AND THEM

Perhaps you should invest in a moat. It would really go rather well with your siege mentality.

HG

[Alien]

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]

Daltongang:

someone wants to kill US because we are Americans. they are THEM. US AND THEM

Perhaps you should invest in a moat. It would really go rather well with your siege mentality.

HG[/quote]

Thank you, HGC! I’ve been waiting for you all weekend. And Rascal too.

I like Fred’s list up there. We could take that on as well. Separate threads, of course.
The quote from “Adaptation”, the native american says to Susan (Meryl Streep).
“I can see your sadness. It’s beautiful.”

Well to Bushco, “I can see your position. It’s illuminating.”

[Tigerman]

You have trivialized the Holocaust by implying that the detainees currently held at Gitmo are living in a “concentration camp”. That is an absurdly stupid notion.

@Huang Guang Chen

I thought that issue was killed off with the definitions of “concentration camp” Alien provided?

At least one of the definitions Alien provided stated that one aspect of a concentration camp is “harsh treatment”. All I am saying is that any attempt to compare the treatment afforded the Gitmo detainees as similar to the treatment given the victims of the Nazi concentration camps is ridiculous, and stupid.

[Tigerman]

The detainees are treated humanely. The treatment received by the detainees depends largely on their own behavior. Released detainees were earlier this year reported by the Boston Globe to have commented that the treatment they received at Gitmo was better than they had/would receive in their home countries

@Huang Guang Chen

Come on Tigerman. So Gitmo offers better treatment than a Pakistani prison and this should be applauded?

I said nothing about applause. I am merely responding to criticism and claims that the detainees are being treated poorly. However, it is indeed significant that the detainees at Gitmo receive humane treatment. That is all they deserve… nothing more. The Red Cross is calling for US legal rights for the detainees… but they are not entitled to such rights. Such rights are not necessary for the treatment to be deemed “humane”.

[Alien]

@tigerman

[quote]You have trivialized the Holocaust by implying that the detainees currently held at Gitmo are living in a “concentration camp”. That is an absurdly stupid notion.

@Huang Guang Chen

I thought that issue was killed off with the definitions of “concentration camp” Alien provided?

At least one of the definitions Alien provided stated that one aspect of a concentration camp is “harsh treatment”. All I am saying is that any attempt to compare the treatment afforded the Gitmo detainees as similar to the treatment given the victims of the Nazi concentration camps is ridiculous, and stupid.[/quote]

TM, I think you like argument for the sake of argument. That is your profession, yes? But for a man with such fierce pride in regards to being ‘right’ and ‘knowledgable’ about issues, I’m afraid you are exhibiting the tendency not to reflect soundly on this matter by letting ‘trivia’ get in the way of your defence of OUR GREAT LEADER.
As your son, yes I’ll drag him into it again(sorry), is close to the same age as some of the prisoners being detained, have you not considered that in itself is ‘harsh’ treatment? I hate to run a parallel of what might happen should China invade Taiwan. I mean, what with the US going against the Geneva convention…all countries can run amok now.

[fred_smith]

Alien:

The Geneva Convention only protects lawful combatants. This does not include sabateurs or spies or terrorists. Better get your facts right. Soldiers must be in clearly identifiable uniforms or be marked to indicate status.

[Tigerman]

@tigerman

You have trivialized the Holocaust by implying that the detainees currently held at Gitmo are living in a “concentration camp”. That is an absurdly stupid notion.

@Huang Guang Chen

I thought that issue was killed off with the definitions of “concentration camp” Alien provided?

@tigerman

At least one of the definitions Alien provided stated that one aspect of a concentration camp is “harsh treatment”. All I am saying is that any attempt to compare the treatment afforded the Gitmo detainees as similar to the treatment given the victims of the Nazi concentration camps is ridiculous, and stupid.

@Alien

TM, I think you like argument for the sake of argument. That is your profession, yes?

Yes, but, irrelevant.

@Alien

But for a man with such fierce pride in regards to being ‘right’ and ‘knowledgable’ about issues, I’m afraid you are exhibiting the tendency not to reflect soundly on this matter by letting ‘trivia’ get in the way of your defence of OUR GREAT LEADER.

I don’t have any more pride in being right than does anyone else here in this forum. I don’t recall ever seeing you admit error.

@Alien

As your son, yes I’ll drag him into it again (sorry), is close to the same age as some of the prisoners being detained, have you not considered that in itself is ‘harsh’ treatment?

Of course it is harsh. My point, that you seem incapable of grasping, is that there are differences in degrees of harshness. Of course living in Gitmo is harsh. I wouldn’t want it for myself and certainly not for my son.

But to equate or even imply that the harsh conditions at Gitmo are anywhere near approximating the harshness of the conditions suffered by the victims of Nazi concentration camps is stupid, and deplorable, IMO. And IMO, your titling this thread as you have was at least an implication that the US treatment of detainees at Gitmo is equivalent to the Nazi treatment of prisoners in Nazi concentration camps. And why should I believe that? You know the answer to that question.

@Alien

I hate to run a parallel of what might happen should China invade Taiwan. I mean, what with the US going against the Geneva convention…all countries can run amok now.

First, the US is NOT violating the Geneva Convention at Gitmo. If you claim that it is, then you should explain exactly how so.

Secondly, you’re not that stupid are you? Do you really think that if the US adheres to the Geneva Convention all other nations or terrorist entitiess/organizations will do the same. Get real.

There is no cause and effect relationship here.