the outcome of the election

[concre+e]

I'm surprised that Armin's calling of Guantanamo a concentration camp is causing such an uproar, since it has been called that throughout the world media since it was established and informtion leaked from it. There have been countless discussions "is Guantanamo a concentration camp" left and right since then, and I'm surprised how anyone could have missed them.

Yes, in my opinion Guantanamo pretty much fits the definition of a concentration camp. Of course it's not like the Nazi concentration camps that had gas chambers installed during the last years of WWII. But ever since the British started using them in the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902, concentration camps have been used, quoting Wikipedia now, as "a large detention centre created for political opponents, aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups, civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, often during a war." Well.

I know that a lot of people who have lost relatives in Nazi concentration camps feel the same way about Guantanamo, and are outraged by its existance. Rightfully so.
Yes, it is no death camp - like Nazi concentration camps weren't death camps during the first years of their existance. That doesn't mean I expect Guantanamo to become one. Still, basic human rights are abused there and noone willing to learn anything from history should tolerate it. In my opinion this doesn't have anything to do with one's nationality.

[Minionman]

Frankly, these topics are a good read up until about page 4, then it gets tedious to read it all.  I'll just add my 2-3 cents here since I didn't read anything about it in the first 4 pages (after that it was a lot of toned down flaming).

GW Bush, I think is a hypocrite.  So are all conservative christians.  Christianity is based on Jesus, a liberal.  I mean, he died for the world's sins, he insisted change in the laws of the time, gave to the poor as much as he could, how much more liberal can you be?  The bible says plenty of things, including how there should be no gay marriages, but then again it also says we can't eat shrimp.
[right][snapback]59362[/snapback][/right]

You can argue both ways about the Bible. If enough people believe the Bible means one thing, than for all practical purposes it does for them, and it doesn't matter what anyone else says. Same goes for any religion, if they think that their religion tells them to do something, and believe it strongly, It doesn't matter whether the religion actually says one thing or another, for all practical purposes, Whatever they believe the relgion says is actually what it says for them.

There are several different groups in he same religion(sunnis, shiites, etc. for muslims for example), all with slightly different beliefs, and there are plenty of people in all of them who think their version is right in all of them.

[Occhidiangela]

Hail Occhi,
Lord_Olf
[right][snapback]59335[/snapback][/right]

Thanks Olf. My German colleagues in NATO went to a great deal of trouble to explain to me, at the time, why. Knowing the history made the explanaitons make plenty of sense. Similar to the Japanese reluctance to get into peacekeeping.

Even so, the policy decision reflected an unwillingness to take a risk, that surprised me. In retrospect, however, I respect the fact that a propagandist, and the Serbs had a few of those at work, would have had a field day with German soldiers once again south of the Sava, so perhaps Chancellor Kohl was smarter in his waging of Information warfare than any number of other world leaders. :D

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Yes, labour unions fight to retain wage levels.  Yes, it is, in receptive societies, the fundamental power base of both Socialist and Communist parties.  If you can explain to me how the presence of a weak labour movement and less-than-moderate interventionist policies means that socialism is alive and well in the U.S., then I'll concede the point to you.  I don't see it.  Nader is leftist.  He's no socialist.  Institutional socialism remains a bad word and, as I can see from your post, Americans (Canadians too) continue to blame the union movement for the fall of Keynesianism.  I don't buy it, but that's just me.  Consider the issue dropped, but respond if you will :)
[right][snapback]59292[/snapback][/right]

I do not recall saying Socialism is alive and well, and indeed, Socialism at present has taken some good hard knocks. The weakness of the labor movement is a recent phenomenon, as in within the last generation.

Leftist . . . implies socialist/communist leanings. That's where the Left and Right tend to sit, unless someone has changed definitions on me yet again! It happens. But yes, Nader is not a Socialist, he is to my view a slightly purer liberal than that, if that makes any sense. (He is also a bit guilty of reading and believing his own newspaper clippings.)

You are also correct to detect the smell of glue. <_<

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I'm surprised that Armin's calling of Guantanamo a concentration camp is causing such an uproar, since it has been called that throughout the world media since it was established and informtion leaked from it. There have been countless discussions "is Guantanamo a concentration camp" left and right since then, and I'm surprised how anyone could have missed them.

Yes, in my opinion Guantanamo pretty much fits the definition of a concentration camp. Of course it's not like the Nazi concentration camps that had gas chambers installed during the last years of WWII. But ever since the British started using them in the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902, concentration camps have been used, quoting Wikipedia now, as "a large detention centre created for political opponents, aliens, specific ethnic or religious groups, civilians of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, often during a war." Well.

I know that a lot of people who have lost relatives in Nazi concentration camps feel the same way about Guantanamo, and are outraged by its existance. Rightfully so.
Yes, it is no death camp - like Nazi concentration camps weren't death camps during the first years of their existance. That doesn't mean I expect Guantanamo to become one. Still, basic human rights are abused there and noone willing to learn anything from history should tolerate it. In my opinion this doesn't have anything to do with one's nationality.
[right][snapback]59366[/snapback][/right]

Nice. You choose to re emphasize an emotionally charged word, one with Hitlerist connotations, and wonder why people get their backs up.

Try this for what Guantanamo Bay facility: It's a prison, where prisoners are awaiting trial. Too mmundane for you? Was there a concentration camp in Germany, post WW II, where the Nuremburg indictees were held? Or was it a "military prison?"

A military prison, go figure. Try using an analogy that fits. ;)

That description is far more accurate than "concentration camp." But when someone wants to charge a subject with emotion, word choice is of course key. Been there, done that. Or, should I say, do it all the time? :P

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Frankly, these topics are a good read up until about page 4, then it gets tedious to read it all.&nbsp; I'll just add my 2-3 cents here since I didn't read anything about it in the first 4 pages (after that it was a lot of toned down flaming).

GW Bush, I think is a hypocrite.&nbsp; So are all conservative christians.&nbsp; Christianity is based on Jesus, a liberal.&nbsp; I mean, he died for the world's sins, he insisted change in the laws of the time, gave to the poor as much as he could, how much more liberal can you be?&nbsp; The bible says plenty of things, including how there should be no gay marriages, but then again it also says we can't eat shrimp.
[right][snapback]59362[/snapback][/right]

If you bother to read the Bible, you'd probably see Jesus as a fundamentalist Hebrew Rabbi. He has more, if you believ the stories in the Bible, in common with the Fundies who decry hedonism, materialism, and loss of focus on "the Word" than he does with secularists.

Being antiestablishment does not make one a liberal, ask any Libertarian!

Jesus, per the Gospels, very much an anti establishment sort of fellow, very much along the line of, say, Martin Luther, in that he went back to the fundamentals and harrassed the too comfortable religious authorities (not the secular authorities, the Romans) about their having become . . . hypocrites.

You might want to try reading the Bible, or even the pertinent parts of it, before you make such a comment. I read it often after I hear someone quote it out of context, typically a Fundie, to see what bits are being left out. Sneaky me!

On the other hand, you could argue that Jesus was indeed quite the Liberal!

Why do say that? He encouraged people to pay taxes without question.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars!" hehe So maybe you had a little bit of a point . . . by accident.

Occhi

[Armin]

Try this for what Guantanamo Bay facility:&nbsp; It's a prison, where prisoners are awaiting trial.&nbsp; Too mundane for you?&nbsp;

Awaiting WHAT trial? They are not even charged with a crime. If anything went the way the Bush Junta wanted it, they wouldn't even be allowed the most rudimentary legal council.

These people are held indefinitely, with no arrest warrant, with no judge checking reasons behind their imprisonment, on NO legal grounds at all, under inhumane conditions away from ANY control by the US legal system or international organisations. Bah. Awaiting trial. just how blind are you?

Was there a concentration camp in Germany, post WW II, where the Nuremburg indictees were held?&nbsp; Or was it a "military&nbsp; prison?"

The accused there were facing concrete charges, had full access to legal council and were held under conditions that were continously supervised by the international red cross and other organisations. The trial was fair by ANY international standards then and it was held in a timely fashion. Boy, has American justice gone downhill since 1946...

And yes, as concre+e stated, discuss it as you will, Guantanamo Bay, by ANY definition of the term is a concentration camp. The absence of gas chambers doesn't change the fact.

And Ashock: My grandfather (mother's side) was a member of the german socialist party and died in a camp in Alsace in 1942. Go figure. In my case, that makes me extremely sensitive to the little beginnings of similar things today. If you wish to keep your eyes closed - go ahead. But honestly, I'd doubt that your wife would be happy with the report's I've seen from Guantanamo Bay... IF they've even been aired in US television.

[kandrathe]

...the way the Bush Junta...
[right][snapback]59381[/snapback][/right]

I'd say that Occhi's call on the emotionally charged rhetoric was spot on. It's a prison camp, some of the people get released, and some are put on trial. You are correct to criticize the process, lack of transparency, or abuse of prisoners. It is not a pleasant place, and most who are there did something to get there. We can disagree with what to do with people who are accused of being terrorists, but I think you could lighten up with the demagoguery.

[Occhidiangela]

Awaiting WHAT trial? They are not even charged with a crime. If anything went the way the Bush Junta wanted it, they wouldn't even be allowed the most rudimentary legal council.

These people are held indefinitely, with no arrest warrant, with no judge checking reasons behind their imprisonment,&nbsp; on NO legal grounds at all, under inhumane conditions away from ANY control by the US legal system or international organisations. Bah. Awaiting trial. just how blind are you?
The accused there were facing concrete charges, had full access to legal council and were held under conditions that were continously supervised by the international red cross and other organisations. The trial was fair by ANY international standards then and it was held in a timely fashion. Boy, has American justice gone downhill since 1946...

And yes, as concre+e stated, discuss it as you will, Guantanamo Bay, by ANY definition of the term is a concentration camp. The absence of gas chambers doesn't change the fact.

And Ashock: My grandfather (mother's side) was a member of the german socialist party and died in a camp in Alsace in 1942. Go figure. In my case, that makes me extremely sensitive to the little beginnings of similar things today. If you wish to keep your eyes closed - go ahead. But honestly, I'd doubt that your wife would be happy with the report's I've seen from Guantanamo Bay... IF they've even been aired in US television.
[right][snapback]59381[/snapback][/right]

How blind are you, friend Armin? You are applying a simple criminal model to a situation that is not a simple criminal situation. Flawed premise. Islamic chaplains, for example, frequently visited inmates, resulting in at least one case of charges beind filed against the Military Chaplain for aiding and abeting the enemy. (I can't remember if those charges have since been dropped or not, would have to comb through some old news stories from the US media.)

The Gitmo situation still gets attention on US TV, and in print media. It has since shortly after it was chosen as a method. The Civil Liberties folks in the US had, and still have, an objection to the process.

You also forget just who it is that was corraled and sent there. Captured enemy combatants from a war, and their accomplices. A war that is still being fought in Afghanistan -- last I checked, Taliban and Al Qaeda are s till fighting, and certainly operatives have not surrendured, unlike Admiral Doenitz and friends, who signed formal surrender documents in May 1945. This is a kind of war that most people, in and out of the military, still don't understand. It is very much NOT the war of Nuremburg in character, it's something else altogether.

Feel free to try and apply your sensitibilities on how a criminal should be treated. The shoe does not fit. It's a new model, just as political campaigns with the internet as a widespread media are fairly new political contests.

You will note that prisoners of war are not generally given legal counsel, however, with the Commissions pending, they have to be or the Commissions cannot convene.

The assertions of abuse are hyperbole, or just plain false, depends on the case, particularly as reported by the European press, who seem to assume, as you appear to do, that a prison should be run like a social services center. The inmates are lucky they are not in a US prison, where things are considerably rougher . . . much to our society's chagrin.

In any case, those captured will wait, as all POW's do, to see what their fate is. You fail to note that a number of inmates have been released.

When you are on the losing end of a war, it sucks to be you. I'd think a German would understand that. (Yes, cheap shot, but at least partially deserved in this case.)

Occhi

[ManaCraft]

For good or bad, we as a country got ourselves into the mess that is Iraq, and we owe it to ourselves, the world, and especiially the Iraqi people to get out of this mess ASAP.

Just make sure you get the job done first.

The US bombed a good portion of Iraq all the way back to the stone age, and did so using arguments that later turned out to be false as the justification for it. More than 10.000 Iraqi citizens are dead as a result of the war. As such I dare say you have a moral responsibility to help put Iraq on the right track before withdrawing your troops.

You won the war. But please, do your best to win the peace as well.


ManaCraft

[Ashock]

Just make sure you get the job done first.

More than 100.000 Iraqi citizens are dead as a result of the war.
You won the war. But please, do your best to win the peace as well.

ManaCraft
[right][snapback]59402[/snapback][/right]

Where do you get your information?



-A

[ManaCraft]

Where do you get your information?

Argh, that's what I get for not proofreading thoroughly enough. Somehow an extra zero snuck in there. Now editing...


ManaCraft

[Armin]

Argh, that's what I get for not proofreading thoroughly enough. Somehow an extra zero snuck in there. Now editing...
ManaCraft
[right][snapback]59407[/snapback][/right]

Actually, according to a recent study published in the medical journal The Lancet, those 100.000 might, sadly, be true:

http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/is...ication.31175.1

It's a study done by Johns Hopkins and the University of Baghdad, so probably not TOO partisan.

[concre+e]

Nice.&nbsp; You choose to re emphasize an emotionally charged word, one with Hitlerist connotations, and wonder why people get their backs up.

As I stated, I was surprised that as of November 2004, people who seem to be politically interested as I take from their participating in this thread, obviously have never heard about an ongoing discussion "Guantanamo - concentration camp, yes or no", that has not just been a subject of "liberal European media" as you put it in another post. I've seen this discussed by Australians, Asians, yes, Europeans, and Americans. New York Times discussed it, so I've read. And I've seen it discussed in conservative media as well.

USA wanting to be the beacon of freedom and democracy? Fine with me, more power to them. But (yet another analogy), if you claim to smell like a rose garden, at least use soap and water on your armpits. And Guantanamo is one stinky armpit.

Unlike many people, I haven't lost my trust in the US at all. Actually I'm hoping for the Ronald-Reagan-effect for GWB, that he too has the same kind of switch somewhere on his back that someone seemed to have found and flipped during RR's second term.
But US leadership is setting their own standards pretty high, by "beacon" talk etc, so they have to face being judged by these. Nothing wrong with that, I believe.

[Armin]

You are applying a simple criminal model to a situation that is not a simple criminal situation.&nbsp;

What criminal model? I'd be asking for basic human rights and the principles of rule of law to be applied. Unalienable principles IIRC...

You will note that prisoners of war are not generally given legal counsel,

Prisoners in Gitmo are NOT treated as POWs and thus denied even THOSE rights. To weasel out of the Geneva Convention and other international standards someone came up with the term "unlawful combatants" for them.

[smithy]

Just make sure you get the job done first.

The US bombed a good portion of Iraq all the way back to the stone age, and did so using arguments that later turned out to be false as the justification for it. More than 10.000 Iraqi citizens are dead as a result of the war. As such I dare say you have a moral responsibility to help put Iraq on the right track before withdrawing your troops.

You won the war. But please, do your best to win the peace as well.
ManaCraft
[right][snapback]59402[/snapback][/right]

I agree. When I say we need to leave ASAP, I mean that we need to get our troops out as soon as possible after after we are done fixing this mess as best we can.

Smithy

[whyBish]

What criminal model? I'd be asking for basic human rights and the principles of rule of law to be applied. Unalienable principles IIRC...

Last I heard, they still all had their heads attached to their bodies. Can't say that about the flipside of the coin.

Perhaps the public would be happier if they had all just been 'war casualties'?

[Chaerophon]

You're right. As long as they're not dead, everything's cool. :huh:

[Occhidiangela]

What criminal model? I'd be asking for basic human rights and the principles of rule of law to be applied. Unalienable principles IIRC...
Prisoners in Gitmo are NOT treated as POWs and thus denied even THOSE rights. To weasel out of the Geneva Convention and other international standards someone came up with the term "unlawful combatants" for them.
[right][snapback]59411[/snapback][/right]

The problem is, that is exactly what they are: unlawful combatants. Most or many of them are NOT covered by The Law of Armed Conflict.

"What the heck, Occhi?" You may be asking at this point. And you seem to forget, when it comes to law and lawyers, weasel in the imperative. Or did you forget the OJ Simpson trial? That idiocy at The Hague with Milosovic?

Al Qaeda are not signatories of the Geneva convention, and are not lawful combatants in accordance with the "rules of war," which leaves them in a rather weird legal limbo. It is not required to force fit them into a template designed for legal combatants. As terrorists, they are an interesting fusion of criminal and user of force for political aims. The rules simply do not cover them, except perhaps as partisans. Maybe.

Taliban fighters have a better call at being considered combatants under the Geneva accords, as they were, when we went into Afghanistan to take them out, the government representing Afghanistan, who IIRC IS a signatory to the Geneva Accords. However, as a policy issue, allies to terrorists are apparently being considered terrorists. Then there is the problem of partisan activity.

Have you thoroughly read the provisions regarding partisan activity in the Geneva Conventions? It sharply defines regular soldiers and irregulars, and how they may be treated differently.

However, I will again point out that "war on terrorists" is not the conventional war that the Geneva Accords are aimed at regulating. A new precedent can be set, since all laws are WHATEVER WE MAKE UP AND CAN BACK UP. Your concern that a step for setting precedent has been taken in the wrong direction is well raised, though. But you appear to ignore that the Information Age, information warfare, is a 24/7 continuum, and that criminals have been exploiting the media for their own ends, have used it as a weapon, for some years. By depriving current soldier-terrorists in the War on Terror, terrorists, with one of their weapons, we are disarming them in the same way as taking away a rifle.

I will repeat this. A key tool, a key weapon, of the terrorist, is use and exploitation of international media. Depriving him of that weapon is a step toward his defeat. You do not let a prisoner hold a rifle, you do not allow a terrorist access the media, or you have just re armed him.

Do you understand that? Far too many people do not.

Now, there is a danger here. I am fully aware of it. The North Vietnamese treatment of prisoners in their control was foul, and their excuse was that as a non signatory of Geneva Accords, they were not bound by it. Japanese made similar comments in re the prisoners from Wake and Bataan. We really don't want to go there. ANd, we are not there. About a year ago, there was an interesting comment from a released Gitmo detainee, from Russia, whose observation "that place was not so bad, well fed, thank goodness I was not in a Russian priso" or words to that effect.

Now, Russian prisons are not famous for their humanity, so that may be damning with faint praise, but will the Drama queens please shut up?

Another line of thought was that "since war had not been declared" the rules did not apply to "war criminals" and "Yankee Air Pirates." I use the Duck test on the Viet Nam war, and it was a War. The gang in Hanoi chose not to.

By your emotional posts, you appear to assume that Americans will torture and abuse prisoners as a matter of policy. Read that last phrase carefully. You will be incorrect.

What is generally ignored, for example, about the Abu Gharib idiocy was that in November, the DoD was advised that violations of regulations were in progress, the invistigation began, and funnily enough, the lawyers for those charged with the misconduct started to write to their Congressmen asking for help, when they were in clear violation of the UCMJ. (Military Law.) Their Congressmen contacted the DoD, asking for assistance against "persecution." The pictures of their own misconduct was released to the internet, as I understand it, as an act of defiance, since . . . they were going down for their misconduct, they wanted to take someone bigger with them.

And some idiots in the media still claim that Sec Def condoned that crap. I am still waiting for the Colonel and General in charge to be put in jail for failing to get it right. That's why they get the big bucks.

But you may feel free to assume away whatever you wish, based on what you know and perceive. Then, diagram the word "assume." <_<

I have been subject to sleep deprivation and starvation, though thank goodness it was only for three days. It was part of my training. That is not torture, you recover from it, it is a mind game. And boy, is it ever. And it sucks, it sucks, it sucks.

One last note. "Basic human rights" is a vague term. What do you mean by that? What is a right, and how do you earn it? (Hey, are there worms in that can?)

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

Al Qaeda are not signatories of the Geneva convention, and are not lawful combatants in accordance with the "rules of war," which leaves them in a rather weird legal limbo.  It is not required to force fit them into a template designed for legal combatants.  As terrorists, they are an interesting fusion of criminal and user of force for political aims.  The rules simply do not cover them, except perhaps as partisans.  Maybe. 

...

However, I will again point out that "war on terrorists" is not the conventional war that the Geneva Accords are aimed at regulating.  A new precedent can be set, since all laws are WHATEVER WE MAKE UP AND CAN BACK UP.  [right][snapback]59451[/snapback][/right]

Therein lies the 'real' problem as I see it.

Just like the Americans did, over two hundred years ago, by hiding behind trees and picking off the Redcoats as they marched in unison, a new kind of warfare is being waged. It took the British a very very long time to adapt to that. They were still adapting when the Boer War came.

This war was not started by a 'nation'. It was started by many (possibly, but not necessarily overlapping) groups of people who have murky goals that appear to include a desire to eliminate 'national' agendas. Terrorists have no distinct nationality.


We, the targets of the terrorists*, are stumbling around seeking to find a way to defend ourselves against terrorism. The 'rules of warfare' are in a state of flux.

Yes, we do live in interesting times. :( I really hope we all learn faster than the British did in my example above.


*And yes, frankly, everyone who posts on this board is part of that 'we'. The westernized world is what is under attack. If you think otherwise, you are kidding yourself.