M-13 - Is Guantanamo Bay A Concentration Camp?

[Grotto]

I sure do wish they would give these people a trial. It seems against whatever we believe in to do this. I sure do wish they would give these

[thethirdman]

Welcome to the boards, man...but I do believe this is a knockturn alley thread. One of the mods might move it.

[Grotto]

I noticed that right away and I tried to edit or delete, but I was unable to.

I admin a board of my own, and the last thing I want to do is to give the admins,or mods more work.

grotto.

[pasalita]

Are you referring to this news story: Pakistani released from Guantanamo camp sues U.S. government for $10.4M (http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WarOnTerrorism/2003/07/09/131364-ap.html)

"ISLAMABAD (AP) - Freed after 10 months in a U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 51-year-old Pakistani Mohammed Sanghir is demanding $10.4 million US in compensation and damages from the U.S. government, his lawyer said.

Sanghir left Guantanamo Bay last November - the first Pakistani released from the prison currently holding about 600 prisoners. He tells of solitary confinement and being caged and said he was served alcohol-laced drinks, forbidden by his religion, Islam.

His legal notice, served by Pakistan lawyer Mohammed Ikram Chaudhry in Rawalpindi, was seen Wednesday.

"They said: 'You are innocent,"' Sanghir reported at the time at his home in northwestern Pakistan.

"They didn't say sorry. They just said: 'You can go home."'

Sanghir, who wore a green plastic wristband with his picture, name, age and prison number US9PK000143DP, said his U.S. captors promised him $2,000 in compensation when he left the plane in Pakistan - but he received only $100.

For two months, he tried to get the rest of his money, he said. In December, he threatened to go to court.

Chaudhry said he mailed the legal notice to the U.S. Embassy in the Pakistani capital Islamabad on Wednesday and it names the U.S. State Department, Defence Department and Justice Department.

The notice demands a reply within four weeks. If there's no compensation, Chaudhry said a lawsuit will be filed in either a U.S. or Pakistani court or both.

Sanghir's legal statement charges maltreatment by his Afghan captors and later by the Americans.

While being held in northern Afghanistan, Sanghir said he was herded into overcrowded prisons and denied food. He said he watched while others were buried alive and hundreds of prisoners died in U.S. bombardments of northern Afghanistan.

When U.S.-led forces gained control of southern Kandahar in Afghanistan, Sanghir and several others were transferred there.

Sanghir's notice said he spent "18 days...in Kandahar where Americans were in complete charge of the camp. They shaved the head, beard and mustaches of all the prisoners."

It says he and others were not allowed to sleep or pray and were "kept in (an) inhuman environment."

"Others were made to stand in the cold winter outside and asked questions about al-Qaida, Taliban and Osama bin Laden," it said.

Sanghir was taken to Guantanamo Bay in shackles and held there for about 10 months, the notice said.

He said his cell on Guantanamo Bay was two metres by two metres and about two metres high. He called it a cage "normally available in zoos."

The notice accused U.S. personnel in Guantanamo Bay of adding alcohol - forbidden by Islam - to prisoners' drinks.

Sanghir said he was initially in solitary confinement and not allowed to pray, until a hunger strike by prisoners led to a relaxation of the rules.

He said he faced relentless questioning, almost entirely about bin Laden and the al-Qaida network.

Sanghir said he was held for eight days and later for another 16 in a dark, tiny cell with cold air constantly "chilling the body of the inmate" - a punishment for not being able to help investigations.

Sanghir's release proved he knew nothing about bin Laden or al-Qaida, the notice said.

It said for 10 months while in American custody at Guantanamo, Sanghir "suffered mental shock, financial loss, physical victimization, estrangement and religious victimization."

He wants $10 million for mental agony and another $400,000 for debts incurred by his family while he was in jail and damage to his sawmill business, it said."

[The Oracle]

No, I think it's another story? The one I'm currently aware of is the one where the British detainees are being tried by a secret military tribunal. Everyone's worried that they won't get a fair trial and they could be sentenced to death.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0700world/content_objectid=13144791_method=full_siteid=50082_headline=-Britons-face-Guantanamo-military--trials---name_page.html

Or, you know...something else. :)

[The Walkin' dude]

In France we call it the guantanamo kennel .

[Grotto]

Actually I was not thinking of that article at all. I was thinking of the 600 to 800 people still in concentration camp condition where it seems there is little change of "due process" occuring. I hope the goverment does something soon or people will just laugh whenever they talk of human rights.

[BubbazGirl]

I thought that Guantanamo Bay was a US military camp. My fiance's parents lived there for several years in the 70's, while his father was a SeaBee, and then a Navy S.E.A.L.. I'm going to call him right now to ask what he thinks...

[::Revolutionary::]

Originally posted by BubbazGirl (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=460779#post460779))
I thought that Guantanamo Bay was a US military camp. My fiance's parents lived there for several years in the 70's, while his father was a SeaBee, and then a Navy S.E.A.L.. I'm going to call him right now to ask what he thinks...


Nono...This is where America sends people , so they dont have to uphold the Human Rights...

[Weatherby]

That's pretty scary.
War/prison camps always are. I remember some debates about similar issues on Politically Incorrect once.

Now what is the difference between a concenctration camp and the prison camps they used in the Civil War, the camps used in films like Empire of the Sun and so forth..
Or is there no difference?
Not pleasant either way.

They send immigrants to regular prison here as well while they "check them out".

[Crystal]

Originally posted by ::Revolutionary:: (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=460790#post460790))
Nono...This is where America sends people , so they dont have to uphold the Human Rights...


Somthing to do with war not being declared means they can be held as criminals not POW's yes?
If we face it America dosn't really have a terribly good Human Rights record (It still has the death penalty which comes under the heading "Crual and Unusual punishment")
What people forget is that we have only the rights and freedoms our goverment gives us. If Bush, or Blair, or any other world leader decided to declare a dictatorship then the people of the country have to like it or lump it (or start a revolution)

[Angora]

I wouldn't call it a concentration camp, but it is an inhumane prison camp. It violates so many US rules about torture and housing prisoners that they had to do it in Cuba where (by the letter of the law) it was legal. After all the talk about how evil communist Cuba is they didn't hesitate to use it to their advantage, did they?

Nobody was treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. True, they weren't state soldiers, but the convention provides for situations where it's uncertain whether or not someone should be treated under it (and in the beginning it was uncertain).

There are serious allegations (that have made the news in Europe, but were hushed up pretty quickly in America) that are being investigated by the UN (last I heard, anyway) about mass graves, and prisoners being left unable to defend or shield themselves during attacks, and one particular incident where prisoners were sealed in air tight containers and shot - this is in Afghanistan. Like I said, last I heard it was still allegations.

I'm sensitive to the fact that many of these prisoners are terrorist who would seize any oportunity to kill their captors. Yes, they need to not have things that can be used as weapons or places to conceal them. But there's no excuse for the rest.

[Hagar]

people sent there don't deserve a nice place to live, a lot of them are terrorists so they are getting what was coming to em. Its not like there torturing them, they're just giving them what they deserved.

[Morgoth]

Originally posted by Hagar (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=461745#post461745))
people sent there don't deserve a nice place to live, a lot of them are terrorists so they are getting what was coming to em. Its not like there torturing them, they're just giving them what they deserved.


Yes, yes and whilst we're on the subject of detaining people with little to no evidence, let's round up all potential Timothy McVeigh's and send them there as well... Any white radicals who threaten the security of America everyday with their extreme racist views. In fact, why aren't they there now?

[Hagar]

No evidance? I'm sure the us intelligance just goes out and choose whoever looks suspicious. They watch the person closely, then if they find reason to bring them in they do so, if a person won't answer questions or they do find good reason that they're a terorist, send em off. I'm glad potential terrorists are being sent there, if a few people are wrongfully accused well its a small price to pay for stoping another 9/11

[Morgoth]

Originally posted by Hagar (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?postid=462016#post462016))
No evidance? I'm sure the us intelligance just goes out and choose whoever looks suspicious. They watch the person closely, then if they find reason to bring them in they do so, if a person won't answer questions or they do find good reason that they're a terorist, send em off. I'm glad potential terrorists are being sent there, if a few people are wrongfully accused well its a small price to pay for stoping another 9/11


The US has well over 650 people at that camp and some have been there for more than a year. They've been charged with nothing and some are even considered innocent of any involvement with terrorism, yet the Bush Government insists on keeping them there... Why? When are any of them going to be charged with anything?

They even arrested two pensioners in their 70s and only later released them after it was clear that they had no excuse to hold elderly people in such a manner. Does the US Government really believe that its methods will bring about world peace or is this merely a case of revenge of the revenant?

[Crucio]

I'm totally disgusted at the way people are treated in an instituition run by my own country (Guantanamo Bay). But as long as nobody is getting burnt alive in ovens it is'nt right to compare it to a concentration camp.

[Jenni The Hurja]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3258017.stm

[Wab]

Guantanamo Bay is a US military institution in Cuba which the US claims is outside standard US legal jurisdiction. It is also where something between 650 and 800 people (inlcuding kids and old men) have been detained without charge or trial for more than two years.
The only detainee to have his day in court was John Walker Lindh and he was tried in the US only because he was a US citizen.
The rest have been denied the protections of the Geneva Conventions because the US defines them as enemy combatants because they weren't regular army. However, the conventions state that people of unclear status have their status determined as soon as possible by a competent military tribunal; not Presidential fiat.
So if they are prisoners of war (and not all were caputred during battle one Australian was arrested while looking for an Islamic school for his kids) they are due the rights of PoWs including exemption from trial and interrogation.
If not they shoud be charged and tried or released if there isn't sufficient evidence (and after two years they should have all they need if there was any).
Oh, and the presumption of innocence.

[SiriuslyBria]

I find the situation at Gunatanamo Bay to be quite appauling. While I don't at this point consider it the same thing as the Nazi's did in WW2, mass murdering millions, I also don't think it is right, or even legal.

The prisoners have been held for years, without being being charged or given a trial. Some are content with the belief that the government must have some evidence to hold them. If this is the case though, why aren't they charged? I hate to say it, but the American people have been lied to in the past, and I have a hard time totally trusting the government right now.

From the aticle Jenni The Hurja linked to:

In March, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected a lawsuit claiming the detainees were under de facto US control, even though the Guantanamo camp is on Cuban territory leased to the US.

BS. It may be Cuban soil, but Guantanamo Bay is in American, not Cuban control. Our government/military says what does and does not go on there, not Cuba.

I have no doubt believing that some of the prisoners held are in fact terrorists. But even terrorists have the right to be charged and given a fair trial. They may not win the trial, but they are entitled to it. So to should those being held at Guantanamo Bay, be they guilty or innocent.

[DsX Phoenix]

No evidance? I'm sure the us intelligance just goes out and choose whoever looks suspicious. They watch the person closely, then if they find reason to bring them in they do so, if a person won't answer questions or they do find good reason that they're a terorist, send em off. I'm glad potential terrorists are being sent there, if a few people are wrongfully accused well its a small price to pay for stoping another 9/11

But, this kind of treatment won't stop another 9/11. In fact, it will most likely give rise to another terrorist attack on the U.S. We will not scare terrorists into giving up, we will simply fuel their hatred, and give them more reason and justification.

Also, American legal system is based on the belief that if only one innocent man is sent to prison, then it has failed. Are you saying that just because these people come from an area where several terrorists are known to be, then they are not good enough to be given the same rights as Americans, or humans in general?

People say that this is OK because some of the people in this camp are terrorists, but more likely than not, some, if not most, aren't. So, this would mean America is torturing (yes, even if only half of the allegations are true, I would consider it torture) innocent people, so what makes us any better than the terrorists?

As far as whether or not Guantanomo Bay is a concentration camp...yes, it is. A concentration camp doesn't have to be as brutal as the ones the Nazis had during WWII. In fact, the U.S. detained Japanese Americans in concentration camps after Pearl Harbor, though I don't think we murdcered them all or anything. But you can't call this a prison camp, because these people are not being charged, or given trials (or even military tribunals).

[SiriuslyBria]

People say that this is OK because some of the people in this camp are terrorists, but more likely than not, some, if not most, aren't. So, this would mean America is torturing (yes, even if only half of the allegations are true, I would consider it torture) innocent people, so what makes us any better than the terrorists?

I don't think torture is ok even if the suspects are guilty. I believe torure to be an inhumane practice. Torture is lowering oneself to the level of the enemy which is something I wish our country wasn't doing, but is, according to many of the stories out of there.

[Masterfroggy]

The Guantanamo Bay camp(s) are there to keep the fact hidden that Mr Bush is waging an illegal war on the enemies of Mr G Bush, and not the enemies of the people of the USA,
Out of sight is out of mind, if John Doe (US citizen) is not reminded at least twice a night of a problem then the problem has gone away.

Take a man/woman or child, blindfold him/her, force them to kneel on hard and uneven soil in 120 degree heat for 12 hours, feed them little food, give them the bare amount of water, do that for weeks on end, all without proving or even trying to prove they a guilty of anything, take away their right to be protected from tyrannical powers, imposed as a knee jerk reaction, without a thought to the real problems caused by 9/11, were Mr Bush the leader of some third world country, the USA would bring the full might of it legal and military power, to resolve the problems of detaining people without trial, as it is, Mr Bush is doing the USA a disservice in proving to others, who he should be trying to get them on his side, instead he is feeding the fires of terrorism giving them more reason to hate, and to attract followers, to the rest of the world he is the one who is feared most. Even in the UK people are worried what new wars he will drag us into.

Sadly this is nothing new to the USA, ask any person of Japanese/american descent where their parents or grandparents spent most of the Second world war, and most likely they would say looking outwards from concentration camps, did the American intern people of Irish descent, or Russian or Spanish, or Italian, no just the Japanese, some of them were descended from the people that helped build the railroad that united the country a hundred years before.

[lilmissmessy]

I'm totally disgusted at the way people are treated in an instituition run by my own country (Guantanamo Bay). But as long as nobody is getting burnt alive in ovens it is'nt right to compare it to a concentration camp.

Dictionary definition of a concentration camp


Definition: [n] a penal camp where political prisoners or prisoners of war are confined (usually under harsh conditions)


Sounds scarily familiar doesnt it. The fact is we dont know what is going on in there and how they are treated and we should know. Everyone should have a right to a fair trial it doesnt matter what they have done it is a fundamental human right.

[Hagrid442]

Guantanamo Bay is another reason why Bush's little "Democracy for Everyone!" speech is as hollow as his head. Yeah, they sure preach about it, yet don't practice it. Do you think that if Iraqis see the huge disconnect between our words and our deeds both on the grand scale, and in their everyday lives that they'll rush to create our style of democracy?

Even terrorists deserve a fair trial. At the very least, it will end many doubts and relieve the US of this huge embarrassment. The amount of damage that a potential few terrorists being acquitted is surely less than the ongoing damage that this concentration camp is doing every day it exists. Let's say, high-end that 80% of those detained are terrorists. That's 640. I'll bet that this injustice has created more terrorists than 640. Add that to our standing as a human rights pariah, and it's sure not a fair trade.

[Morgoth]

The problem with this is that it extends well beyond the wired fences of this "camp." It's a perfect example of a nation being led by a government that is scared and reacts so aggressively to just about any problem that arises. Bush said in an interview on BBC television today that he was driven by Septemeber 11, which is fine if you believe that terrorism began on that very day. It didn't. It's been around for centuries and there are traits to it. Every political super-power creates enemies from its friends. This is usually due to the double crossing of the superpower in question or the arrogance of those in control to assume they can do anything they want from their offices and not suffer the penalty.

The United States of America, whilst a very great nation, which I admire a lot is being led by fear and that will be its undoing. You will not gain any benefits from detaining people in these camps or in other ventures such as the PATRIOT Act and why? Fear, again! The problem with fear is that it carries no forethought, no afterthought. Every action, which results from people that are afraid is only concerned with the present and everything else becomes secondary. You lose wisdom when you are afraid, you learn to think only for yourself. Your actions have no consequence and with that mentality, you can just about do anything without worrying that what you're doing is doing more bad than good.

[Hagrid442]

140 Guantanamo detainees to be released (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20031130_209.html)

This would be good news, but....

Time magazine reports that these 140 or so prisoners were given to the US by Afghan warlords in return for a bounty, without the US checking up on the story.

Here's the Time article (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031208-552060,00.html)

[Jagdverband]

Camp X-Ray certainly fills most of the criteria one would normally assign to a concentration camp. About the only common feature in which X-ray falls short is that the detainees seem to be kept in fairly good health. Historically, concentration camps (not to be confused with extermination camps - Germany maintained both during and preceding WW2) have been places in which inmates are crowded in poor conditions, usually detained summarily, sometimes put to forced labour, and almost always places of extremely poor hygiene. The British (yes, they pioneered the concept) concentration camps during the Boer War were hell-holes in which dysentry and other diseases wiped out at least 10,000 (sure, it's a drop in the ocean compared to WW2) Boer women and children.

Personally, I call a spade a spade, and Camp X-ray is a KL in every sense of the term. You can't fairly call the facility a prisoner-of-war camp, seeing as none of the inmates are members of a recognised military organisation, and it's not really a gaol, since none have faced legal procedings, whether it be a civilian trial or a military tribunal. The only viable alternative is the designation of concentration camp, and the government of the United States of America should be hauled before the International War Crimes Tribunal to answer charges. It's abhorrent and a crime against humanity, more especially because it drags an allegedly civilised nation to the level of uncommon criminals and thugs.

[Wab]

and the government of the United States of America should be hauled before the International War Crimes Tribunal to answer charges.

As the US has refused to ratify the Internatinal Criminal Court it can't be held responsible there and all other current war crime tribunals are creations of the UN Security Council where the US has a veto.

A law unto itself (althouhg happy to cite international law when it suits).

[Jagdverband]

I'm sure the Slavic states weren't signatories to the International Criminal Court or the IWC tribunal either, but that hasn't stopped charges being filed against Serbian war criminals, and even arrest warrants out for former heads of state, who can no longer travel anywhere in the world for fear of being arrested and being shipped off to the Hague.

[Wab]

True but the commissions dealing with former Yugoslavia and Rwanda are one-off courts that will eventually be dissolved like the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crime trials.

The ICC is an on-going court that will not require a special UN resolution as was the case with the other tribunals.

[Angora]

You don't have to ratify the ICC to be charged. If you're committing crimes against a nation that has ratified the ICC, you can still be charged. At least that's my understanding of it.

AI has more about the "trials" (http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/September2003/Guantanamo) mentioned earlier.

Kind of a glaring black mark while Bush is blathering on about defending human rights, isn't it?

[Hagrid442]

Anyone that's not blind should be able to see that Bush doesn't care one iota about protecting human rights.

[Wab]

Not only has the US not ratified the ICC it has pressurised some nations not to bring charges against US forces.

[Hagrid442]

The US has legitimate concerns that the international community will abuse the ICC to prosecute US citizens frivolously. Belgium tried it earlier. However, Guantanamo Bay violates so many Geneva Convention rules, it's not even funny. If the US wants to be a real world leader, it has to re-learn that it cannot do so by military force alone, but also by example.

[Wab]

The biggest protection that the ICC offers is that member nations are given the opportunity to investigate and (if necessary) prosecute the offender.

If the country does so, the court loses jurisdiction over that case.

[bungo mungo]

What Geneva Convention rules does Gitmo violate? I'm just wondering....

[Hagrid442]

This (http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=16094)is a funny, yet pointed criticism of Gitmo and how it is anathema to due process, and just plain justice.

[Wab]

What Geneva Convention rules does Gitmo violate? I'm just wondering....

The protocols as I recall that the US is in violation are as follows:

PoWs are not required to give more than their name, rank and serial number.

Any persons captured in a war zone whose status is undetermined are to be treated as PoWs until their status has been determined by a competent military tribunal. Not, as in the case of the Gitmo prisoners, presidential dictate. (W is niether competent, military nor a tribunal.)

PoWs cannot be placed on trial and must be repatriated at the end of hostilities.

[PrtVeela]

The problem with this is that it extends well beyond the wired fences of this "camp." It's a perfect example of a nation being led by a government that is scared and reacts so aggressively to just about any problem that arises. Bush said in an interview on BBC television today that he was driven by Septemeber 11, which is fine if you believe that terrorism began on that very day. It didn't. It's been around for centuries and there are traits to it. Every political super-power creates enemies from its friends. This is usually due to the double crossing of the superpower in question or the arrogance of those in control to assume they can do anything they want from their offices and not suffer the penalty.

The United States of America, whilst a very great nation, which I admire a lot is being led by fear and that will be its undoing. You will not gain any benefits from detaining people in these camps or in other ventures such as the PATRIOT Act and why? Fear, again! The problem with fear is that it carries no forethought, no afterthought. Every action, which results from people that are afraid is only concerned with the present and everything else becomes secondary. You lose wisdom when you are afraid, you learn to think only for yourself. Your actions have no consequence and with that mentality, you can just about do anything without worrying that what you're doing is doing more bad than good.

THANK YOU! I live in the U.S. but I agree w/ you 1000% Genius sheer genious :) I'm writing a paper on this for english (MWHAHAHAHA well that is what it means to be an American citizen in Bush's America)

It bothers me that Bush claims to be defending our freedoms and rights, and yet he refuses the Guantanamo detainees any rights. If you are going to protect the rights of america, and what she stands for, that you protect the rights of all even the alleged "terrorists". Because when you start making a distinction, this is when our freedoms are unjustly ripped away. I.E. regulating the interent , Patriot Act.

There is a document that Congress is supposed to have whenever passing an act, it is an overview, sort of an in depth if you will account of what this act is, however, for the Patriot Act this wasn't needed.

Any way back to Guantanamo....
How as a nation, can we stand for this? Do we not see, are we that blinded by fear? And if so is this just fear, or is it fear created by a unjust Administration? Bush says our cause is just and that's why we will succeed? So maybe that's why were failing horribly at our endeavours?

[IrmoPimp]

NO! It's not.

First off, I know that at least some, if not many, of the prisoners are not American. Therefore they don't get American rights.

Secondly, they are TERRORISTS. They collaborated in plans to murder free, innocent Americans because they weren't Muslim. Wow, we should treat them real nicely.

Thirdly, "concentration camp" is a buzzword that the media uses to get attention. Did you know that the prisoners get heating/AC, 3 hot meals a day, exercise, daily showers, and PRAYER TIME!!!! WTF!!!

No, they need to be hanged as soon as possible. Our soldiers are lucky to get one hot meal a week, a bath in 2 weeks, and a change of clothes every week.

[Jagdverband]

NO! It's not.

First off, I know that at least some, if not many, of the prisoners are not American. Therefore they don't get American rights.

Secondly, they are TERRORISTS. They collaborated in plans to murder free, innocent Americans because they weren't Muslim. Wow, we should treat them real nicely.

Thirdly, "concentration camp" is a buzzword that the media uses to get attention. Did you know that the prisoners get heating/AC, 3 hot meals a day, exercise, daily showers, and PRAYER TIME!!!! WTF!!!

No, they need to be hanged as soon as possible. Our soldiers are lucky to get one hot meal a week, a bath in 2 weeks, and a change of clothes every week.

Obviously, I need to remind some people that America has done this exact same thing before. And the last time the American Government did it, they did to their own citizens!!! That's right, in the months after December 7, 1941, tens of thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry were locked up in camps because they were of Japanese descent. Not a single one of them had committed any crime. Had America followed the same argument Irmopimp demands then, the USA would have descended to the same level Nazi Germany went to, instead of being one step above them in the stormwater drains instead of the sewers. And you want to know what those same Japanese-Americans did? Instead of getting angry with the nation they declared loyalty to, they reinforced their loyalty by volunteering to fight for the flag that imprisoned their families. The single most decorated units of the US Army in Europe were none other than the 100th Battalion and 442nd Regimental Combat Team, two formations of Japanese American soldiers.

Granted, perhaps the internees at Gitmo do not deserve the protections guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions. But as detainees of the US Federal Government, they deserve the same rights as any other prisoner being detained prior to a trial - that is, to be processed by the legal system with reasonable speed and efficiency.

[DsX Phoenix]

NO! It's not.

First off, I know that at least some, if not many, of the prisoners are not American. Therefore they don't get American rights.

Secondly, they are TERRORISTS. They collaborated in plans to murder free, innocent Americans because they weren't Muslim. Wow, we should treat them real nicely.

Thirdly, "concentration camp" is a buzzword that the media uses to get attention. Did you know that the prisoners get heating/AC, 3 hot meals a day, exercise, daily showers, and PRAYER TIME!!!! WTF!!!

No, they need to be hanged as soon as possible. Our soldiers are lucky to get one hot meal a week, a bath in 2 weeks, and a change of clothes every week.

No, they are suspected terrorists. None of them have been convicted of anything. In America, people are innocent until proven guilty (and, this is not just a right afforded to American citizens, this is a principle that our country was founded on. When you break those principles for anyone, irregardless of their citizenship, the breaks the foundation of our country).

"Terrorist" is also a buzzword the media uses. A lot of these were soldiers for the Taliban, who were really only fighting to defend their claim over Afghanistan. We just labelled them terrorists, since they were not members of a recognized national army.

[Jenni The Hurja]

Thirdly, "concentration camp" is a buzzword that the media uses to get attention. Did you know that the prisoners get heating/AC, 3 hot meals a day, exercise, daily showers, and PRAYER TIME!!!! WTF!!!

So what? Their freedom has been taken! No trials, just as DsX Phoenix said, they're suspected terrorists. If you didn't have to register on these forums, I'd be sure your whole post is a joke.

[PrtVeela]

NO! It's not.

First off, I know that at least some, if not many, of the prisoners are not American. Therefore they don't get American rights.

Secondly, they are TERRORISTS. They collaborated in plans to murder free, innocent Americans because they weren't Muslim. Wow, we should treat them real nicely.

Thirdly, "concentration camp" is a buzzword that the media uses to get attention. Did you know that the prisoners get heating/AC, 3 hot meals a day, exercise, daily showers, and PRAYER TIME!!!! WTF!!!

No, they need to be hanged as soon as possible. Our soldiers are lucky to get one hot meal a week, a bath in 2 weeks, and a change of clothes every week.

Treatment of our soliders should not mean that we treat others with utter inhumanity, if you we stand for the American Ideals we say we do that is. And do you know what they did? No, none of us do, therfore to say that they are "terrorists" indefinatley is a fallicy. Not to mention the fact that your basis for why the 'terrorists' have such aggression twoards America is completly wrong. It is the fact that we are an imperalist nation whom pushes its will upon other nations, and that's just one reason out of many.

And, I find it very hard to beileve that the pirsoners get heating and a/c as you call it, in their cages.

It boggles my mind that you can calmly say they should get hanged as soon as possible, I hope that if your life were in someone else's hands they wouldn't pass such quick judgement on you. What kind of world would that be?

[Wab]

And as a end note no detainees are American. The one American detainee was repatriated and tried in an open court.

[Jenni The Hurja]

And as a end note no detainees are American. The one American detainee was repatriated and tried in an open court. I was under the impression that the American detainee Jasser Esam Hamd was transferred to a segregation cell on another military base, but has not yet been charged with anything.

EDIT: But yeah, being an American, he's obviously been treated differently than the others.

[PrtVeela]

Personally, I call a spade a spade, and Camp X-ray is a KL in every sense of the term. You can't fairly call the facility a prisoner-of-war camp, seeing as none of the inmates are members of a recognised military organisation, and it's not really a gaol, since none have faced legal procedings, whether it be a civilian trial or a military tribunal. The only viable alternative is the designation of concentration camp, and the government of the United States of America should be hauled before the International War Crimes Tribunal to answer charges. It's abhorrent and a crime against humanity, more especially because it drags an allegedly civilised nation to the level of uncommon criminals and thugs.

While I agree, I disagree with you on your stance that they cannot be considered POW'S.

When the President in a TV address to the nation (On sept 11th), he said that al quadea and terriosts committed an act of war, we declared war against the terrorists therfore wouldn't any person taken into custodity be a POW would they not? Thefore subject to the Genevea Convention laws?

[DsX Phoenix]

But this is the U.S. government's reason for why they don't have to obey the Geneva Convention in this case.

[Jagdverband]

While I agree, I disagree with you on your stance that they cannot be considered POW'S.

When the President in a TV address to the nation (On sept 11th), he said that al quadea and terriosts committed an act of war, we declared war against the terrorists therfore wouldn't any person taken into custodity be a POW would they not? Thefore subject to the Genevea Convention laws?

Well, the terms of the Geneva Conventions state that prisoners of war must be repatriated to their native country upon cessation of hostilities. Since none of these detainees have been repatriated, and are supposedly waiting criminal proceedings, they obviously aren't being treated as POWs by the US government. But, to hold someone in gaol without trial is a violation of civil liberties anywhere in the world (alright, anywhere in the freedom loving democratic world).

George W Bush may have declared war against terror, but IMHO, terror is not a matter for the involvement of standing armed forces to engage in fighting. It should be a criminal matter to be handled by the appropriate police forces - if military support is needed, then make use of military special forces, who have the training to take the battle to terrorists in a way the pricks understand.

Also, the problem exists that no government recognises Al Qaeda as a legitimate uniformed military force. They don't wear any semblance of uniforms, they are privately backed, and do not obey the Hague Convention on the rules of land warfare, nor do they pay any attention to the relevant sections of the Geneva Conventions. At best, Al Qaeda are a pack of mercenaries, at worst, exactly as they have been described in the media - terrorists.

[PrtVeela]

Well, the terms of the Geneva Conventions state that prisoners of war must be repatriated to their native country upon cessation of hostilities. Since none of these detainees have been repatriated, and are supposedly waiting criminal proceedings, they obviously aren't being treated as POWs by the US government. But, to hold someone in gaol without trial is a violation of civil liberties anywhere in the world (alright, anywhere in the freedom loving democratic world).

George W Bush may have declared war against terror, but IMHO, terror is not a matter for the involvement of standing armed forces to engage in fighting. It should be a criminal matter to be handled by the appropriate police forces - if military support is needed, then make use of military special forces, who have the training to take the battle to terrorists in a way the pricks understand.

Also, the problem exists that no government recognises Al Qaeda as a legitimate uniformed military force. They don't wear any semblance of uniforms, they are privately backed, and do not obey the Hague Convention on the rules of land warfare, nor do they pay any attention to the relevant sections of the Geneva Conventions. At best, Al Qaeda are a pack of mercenaries, at worst, exactly as they have been described in the media - terrorists.

Good Point! (after good point after good point :) )
However, the Pakistani government had a representive from the Taliban on the government pannel wouldn't that be recognizing Al Qaeda as a form of government?

You could make the argument that the Taliban is privatley backed...or at least it was by the U.S. when it was fighting the Russians...lol that would certainly change the course of events...we'd have to be fighting with...ourselves.

I agree with you all the same, declaring war on the terrorists was just about as good as...no nothing is as stupid as declaring a war on terror for as long as there are free nations or rather governments that do not appease the people of the world there will be terror.

Not to mention, if the 'terrorists' are going to be charged in war tribunals well i guess I have a question...are they any limitations to the types of people that can be tried at war tribunals? I mean if we aren't in a state of war, well a declared war that is wouldn't that mean that war tribunals would be...what's the word i'm looking for...obscolete?

[Jagdverband]

Good Point! (after good point after good point :) )
However, the Pakistani government had a representive from the Taliban on the government pannel wouldn't that be recognizing Al Qaeda as a form of government?

Well, Pakistan is about the only country that did recognise the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, but that was, IIRC, a matter of convenience. Pakistan had to deal with Afghanistan whether they liked it or not, and some semblance of diplomatic recognition was the easiest way to go about it.

You could make the argument that the Taliban is privatley backed...or at least it was by the U.S. when it was fighting the Russians...lol that would certainly change the course of events...we'd have to be fighting with...ourselves.

Al Qaeda is a completely seperate entity to the Taliban, if I've understood the various sources of information on the matter correctly. I believe they are allies of a common goal and convenience, not a unified organisation. I believe Al Qaeda draw their funding from a vast variety of sources, from Muslims and others sympathetic to their cause, to family held business interests of Usama bin Laden.

I agree with you all the same, declaring war on the terrorists was just about as good as...no nothing is as stupid as declaring a war on terror for as long as there are free nations or rather governments that do not appease the people of the world there will be terror.

I have nothing to discuss on this point, since I'm entirely sure what you mean, and that's more my fault than anything else. :)

Not to mention, if the 'terrorists' are going to be charged in war tribunals well i guess I have a question...are they any limitations to the types of people that can be tried at war tribunals? I mean if we aren't in a state of war, well a declared war that is wouldn't that mean that war tribunals would be...what's the word i'm looking for...obscolete?

Well, due to basic human nature, we will never be totally free of the concept of war. The only good thing to come of the Second World War was the decision to aportion blame appropriately, even if it wasn't done so effectively. Prior to 1945, it was simply assumed to be the right of kings and rulers to wage war if they so desired. In a flawed attempt to correct that ideal, the concept of war crimes tribunals came into being. The idea was not new in 1945, for it had been attempted in 1920 after WW1, and the idea of war crimes hed been around at least since the end of the Crimean War. The International Military Tribunals at Nuremburg, Tokyo and Ambon were an attempt to mete out punishment for those crimes. It is debatable exactly how effective those tribunals were at correcting the idea of waging aggressive war for greed, but one thing is certain, Germany and Japan have not contemplated wars of domination since. If handled correctly, and with fairness to all, war crimes tribunals can still have their place in the international legal system.

One point is that during the Nuremburg trials, it was far more extensive than just the 22 highest ranking Nazi defendants who could be detained and kept in good health until trial. Military tribunals tried virtually anyone who had been accused of war crimes, and even some who weren't. Punishment wasn't always handed out. It didn't matter whether the defendant was soldier or civilian. As for the bulk of the German bureaucracy, many underwent tribunals to determine the extent of their loyalty to the Nazi regime, and there were re-education programmes aimed at de-Nazi-fication of the populace. Those committees were pretty much a joke, but they existed.

Back to the matter of prosecuting terrorists, it's not necessary to have statutes that criminalise terrorism. A terrorist should be tried in exactly the same fashion as any other common criminal, and punished accordingly.

I firmly believe that terrorism should not be a crime under military law. In free democracies, civilians, not soldiers, hold the reins of power, so terrorist activities are crimes against civilians, just as a man killing his wife in a domestic dispute is a crime punishable under civilian statutes. Therefore, if terrorists are to be prosecuted in a civil criminal court, then I'm not aware of any country in the world in which murder, assault, vandalism, destruction of public and private property etc is not a crime.

This is where I agree wholeheartedly with the course Indonesia took in prosecuting the Bali bombers. They were tried under Indonesian civil law, or what passed for it anyway, and they were sentenced according to the statutes permitted by the Indonesian government. On that score, what I disagreed with was the continual martyr-making the international media went on with. But that is a topic for discussion in another thread, and another time.

[IrmoPimp]

Wow, I got lamblasted!

Well, Japanese Americans were not placed in "concentration camps"
during WWII. This word is thrown around quite a bit. They were
placed in camps to remove them from society b/c the govn. knew
that they would be harrassed and ostracized for being Japanese. Maybe
some or many of them were mistreated, but they weren't worked to death,
shot in the head, gassed, or burned alive. That's what happened at real
concentration camps.

PrtVeela, how do you know the prisoners are in cages?

In closing, I would like to make a note. Terrorism is a new kind of threat.
Sure, it's been around for quite a while, but never on a level like this.
We are fighting an enemy that hides in a group of people whose numbers
climb into 1 billion. We cannot find them easily, or confirm their actions.
I think the government is handling the situation the best they can, using
what they know and what they think will work best. Any way you slice it,
the government is working FOR the people. Remember that.

[Jagdverband]

Wow, I got lamblasted!

Well, Japanese Americans were not placed in "concentration camps"
during WWII. This word is thrown around quite a bit. They were
placed in camps to remove them from society b/c the govn. knew
that they would be harrassed and ostracized for being Japanese. Maybe
some or many of them were mistreated, but they weren't worked to death,
shot in the head, gassed, or burned alive. That's what happened at real
concentration camps.

Uh, no. That's what happened in extermination camps. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, concentration camps are a British invention dating back to the Boer War. Boer women and children weren't worked to death, tortured or otherwise murdered, but they were kept in poor conditions that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands from disease and starvation. Read up on the internment of Japanese Americans in 1942. See if the conditions they were forced to live in resemble conditions you'd freely want to live in for your own..... what was the word you used?..... protection.

PrtVeela, how do you know the prisoners are in cages?

It's in all the news stories. Maybe you haven't seen any of the human interest stories from New York City of the father of one of the inmates at Camp X-Ray living in the same conditions his son does.

In closing, I would like to make a note. Terrorism is a new kind of threat. Sure, it's been around for quite a while, but never on a level like this.
We are fighting an enemy that hides in a group of people whose numbers
climb into 1 billion. We cannot find them easily, or confirm their actions.
I think the government is handling the situation the best they can, using
what they know and what they think will work best. Any way you slice it,
the government is working FOR the people. Remember that.

Hmm, again no. Using standing armies and sending divisions of heavy combat troops to root out weasels in the hills is not sound or sensible, nor is it a case of handling the problem the best the US government can. It didn't work in Vietnam, it hasn't worked in Afghanistan or Iraq. Terrorists have to be treated like common criminals. If that means using military forces, then that means repealing the posse commitatus laws the US has in place, and tasking Special Forces troops to work in direct cooperation with police agencies both with-in the United States and around the world to catch these mongrels.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

I think the problem with this question is that people associate concentration camps with what Jews, gypsies, and everyone else were put in in the Holocaust. No reasonable person can compare Guantanamo Bay to the death camps of the Nazis. Merriam Webster defines a concentration camp as"
: a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined." So Guantanamo Bay is definitely a concentration camp. The problem is that concentration camp has connotations of genocide. That's not what Guantanamo Bay is. I think the fairest term would be "prison camp," or something like that.

[DsX Phoenix]

You could make the argument that the Taliban is privatley backed...or at least it was by the U.S. when it was fighting the Russians...lol that would certainly change the course of events...we'd have to be fighting with...ourselves.

I know this is off-topic, but I have to make this point. The Taliban is not a terrorist organization, like Al Queada. The Taliban was a ruling party, similar I suppose to the Nazis. However, no one really accepted the Taliban as a legitimate government in Afghanistan, so there was no recognized national army.

[Wab]

I know this is off-topic, but I have to make this point. The Taliban is not a terrorist organization, like Al Queada. The Taliban was a ruling party, similar I suppose to the Nazis. However, no one really accepted the Taliban as a legitimate government in Afghanistan, so there was no recognized national army.

THe Taliban had full diplomatic ties with about three countries but had enough recognition as the working government to receive US aid just months before 9/11.

And as for recogniseable insignia a friend whose work has made him a bit of an Afghan expert told me that ranks among the Taliban and AQ were differentiated by the colour and way they tied their turbans and was plain to those with some cultural savvy.

[Hagrid442]

The Taliban held the political power in Afghanistan. Yes, they had a radically fundamentalist dogma, but they weren't terrorists in the strict sense. Because their views overlapped with Al Qaeda's, they lent them asylum. I'm not sorry to see the Taliban gone, yet quite concerned that we're letting them regain power again in our negligence. By we, I mean the whole Western world. The Bush administration has effectively ignored Afghanistan since the fighting stopped. However, NATO has reneged on a promise to send troops, thus not lightening the US's burden like they were supposed to.

Terrorists must be treated like, yes, criminals. Al Qaeda is different from most terrorist groups in that they are stateless. Thus, they must be tried as international criminals. That's the key word, "tried". Not held in some sort of limbo like Guantanamo Bay. Many innocent men are bound to be unfairly imprisoned there. Charge them with crimes, see what happens, and if they're innocent, release them. If they're guilty, deal with them harshly, even going so far to use the death penalty. That's "tough justice", but at least it's justice. Gitmo is so contrary to our notions of fairness and due process, that it's a mockery to patriotic Americans.

Another misnomer is the term "War on Terrorism". What exactly does that mean? Terrorists are not representatives of any viable state. As been said many times, they're a band of criminals. Terrorism itself is more an abstraction than anything. The so-called "War on Terrorism", then, is a joke. I agree that it needs to be fought, but labelling it a "war" is wrong-headed.

[DsX Phoenix]

Hagrid, the "War on Terrorism" is the same as the "War on Drugs". Just a campaign slogan. Since 9/11, Americans are scared to death, and we need assurance from our government that we'll be kept safe. What better way to do this than to wage a relentless "war"?

[Wab]

Hagrid442 NATO is currently leading the peace-keeping in Afghanistan.

[Hagrid442]

I know it's just a campaign slogan. That's the problem. What progress in the "War Against Drugs" have we made? Calling it a war makes people give permission for overly aggressive ways of waging a counter-movement that do more harm than good.

As for NATO, Hillary Clinton cited them on Meet The Press, and she said "I don't think we have enough American troops [in Afghanistan] and we certainly don't have the promised NATO troops."

[Wab]

Nato has serious problems as Europe works on a more independent defence policy.

[Hagrid442]

Nato has serious problems as Europe works on a more independent defence policy.

They need it. And America should be well-pleased as this might ease the burden on us. Europe has been freeloading off the US for so long on defense, it's about time they take up the slack.

[Wab]

The principle behind the shift is that Europe wants to be able to act co-operatively without needing US approval which is required under NATO.

[Hagrid442]

That's the other benefit.

Thus, it is to their advantage and ours. :tu:

[lilmissmessy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1766037.stm

[Hagrid442]

Not only has the US not ratified the ICC it has pressurised some nations not to bring charges against US forces.

Speaking of which, I came across this little nugget of insanity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A41748-2002Jun12&notFound=true)

I had no idea. I am truly ashamed. It used to be America set a good example. Now we just use fear to get what we want.

[Tane]

Yes I think Guantanamo Bay is no better off than the concentration camps designed for the Jews during the Second World War. When some people are picked up as backpackers and thrown in there because they are a different color or race, then the place needs to shut down. Where has the line innocent until proven guilty gone? There is no excuse for the way these people are being treated before proven guilty. No one should be treated like dogs, put in cage and exposed to the elements, shackled, beaten and drugged before they have been proven guilty. Three have already been allowed back to Britain because they were found not guilty yet still treated barbarously in this camp.

[Chrysalis]

Speaking of which, I came across this little nugget of insanity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A41748-2002Jun12&notFound=true)

I had no idea. I am truly ashamed. It used to be America set a good example. Now we just use fear to get what we want.

Actually, Hagrid, this is very old news. Of course it was big news over here in the Netherlands. Although it still surprises me that there wasn't more of an uproar over this. I guess that the idea of US troops invading the Netherlands because American war criminals are held in the International Court of Justice seemed so absurd that many deemed it as some sort of joke. Isn't such a law in conflict with international law(sorry don't know how else to put it).

[Hagrid442]

I know it was old news. Still, it was shocking to me.