Gitmo can’t, in any reasonable way, be compared to the Soviet Gulag system. That network of prison camps was set up to house Soviet citizens for crimes, both political and non-political. There is not a single US citizen detained at Gitmo. The Soviet Gulag system spanned decades and housed millions of prisoners. There is not only a difference in degree (see below) but also in kind.
The problem with this analogy is that it redirects the debate from the real problems of Gitmo to a useless attempt to draw a comparison to something that had an entirely different set of problems. It’s about on par with the Bush = Hitler claims.
The one who makes the assertion bears the burden of proof. You made the assertion. Accordingly…
Right, but I have already mentioned that your word is not enough in this matter. You have made a (rather sweeping) assertion. Back it up.
My feeling is that the US voters do not see this in the way that AI and others want them to - as a purely civilian criminal matter. Thus the opponents of the war are demanding that the US do what it has never done in other military matters - treat Gitmo as if it were a police precinct.
And the part about the detentions being without judicial oversight is, at best, an exaggeration.
Which allegations, specifically? I want to be sure that we aren’t conflating claims here.
Do you mean the 25% of the 108 deaths? The part about flushing the Qur’an down the toilet? The fact that the prisoners are being treated as non-traditional combatants ? Lyndie England and her lot?
There have been a number of allegations by AI and others, some of which have been substantiated and many of which have not.
If you are asserting that everyone on earth besides the US thinks that the detainees at Gitmo are being horrificly abused by mpt being treated as POWs, this is not quite the case -
It affords me no comfort at all. As I said, it simply detracts from the actual problems of the situation at Gitmo, which I have spoken out against many times on this board. Sorry if I didn’t also equate Bush with Hitler or Stalin in the process, though, if that’s what you’re getting at.
No, I negated any assertion that we are “at war.” The burden is on those who claim we are at war to prove that are.
Back WHAT up? I haven’t made any assertion at all, much less a “sweeping” one. . YOU have. Are you suggesting that we HAVE made a formal declaration of war? That we DO have a defined enemy or goal? I have no idea what you’re arguing with or what you don’t want to “take my word” for. What would be an acceptable cite to prove we have NOT declared a war or that we have NOT defined an enemy?
The only thing less relevant than your “feeling” on this matter is how US viters “see” it. A war is defined by how a plurality of citizens can be duped into “seeing” it but by factors like those I’ve mentioned which you’ve conveniently ignored in your ridiculous attempt to reverse the burden to prove a factual claim.
We’re saying to EITHER treat it like a POW camp OR charge them as criminals. We are currently doing neither.
And the part about the detentions being without judicial oversight is, at best, an exaggeration.
Which allegations, specifically? I want to be sure that we aren’t conflating claims here.
Do you mean the 25% of the 108 deaths? The part about flushing the Qur’an down the toilet? The fact that the prisoners are being treated as non-traditional combatants ? Lyndie England and her lot?
There have been a number of allegations by AI and others, some of which have been substantiated and many of which have not.
If you are asserting that everyone on earth besides the US thinks that the detainees at Gitmo are being horrificly abused by mpt being treated as POWs, this is not quite the case - PDF.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
The imprisonment in and of itself is an abuse of human rights. We have no right to hold them without either affording them POW status or giving them due process in the criminal system. And since we are NOT AT WAR, under any legitimate definition of the word, then the latter option makes more sense.
That resolution appeared in september 2002 and it reports to investigations made late in 2001. On December 2, 2002 Rumsfeld prescribed new interrogation polices for Guantanamo.
I see your cite and I only see an attempt to misguide. Or once again, here is the typical conservative “ignore timelines” syndrome in the way to cite.
Why don’t you explain exactly what you meant, then? How about actually coming out for once and making a declarative statement, instead of throwing around inuendoes?
I have never once on this board defended the practice of detaining prisoners at Gitmo. I get absolutely no comfort out of the fact that it can’t accurately be compared to the Gulag system. Why on earth would you think or imply otherwise? As I explicitly said in my post, that comparison only detracts from the real problems there.
Have you considered the possibility, however meager, than my comment was not specificly directed to John Mace, that, in fact, I have any number of opinions and statements to make that do not bear directly on the opinions and statements of John Mace?
Post post, ergo propter post: the mistaken presumption that because a post folllows one’s own in close proximity, it must therefore be a response to same. Ain’t necessarily so.
OK, you got me, its a fair cop, but society is to blame. I’m obsessed with you, John, you’re all I think about, my every post is directed towards, and inspired by, you. More than Paris Hilton, more than American Idol, you are the focus of my every waking thought.
You might want to take out a restraining order. I’ll be hurt, of course, but I’ll try and understand.
Anyway, I don’t want to continue this hijack any further. I’[m confident that any impartial observer will agree with me that your post was in response to mine.
The only reason I responded in the first place was to make sure no one read your post and, incorrectly, assumed that I was defending Gitmo. I wasn’t doing that in this thread, and I never have in other threads. I think that detention process is wrong, and Bush is making a mistake by insisting on continuing it.
On which issues we are in general agreement. Which I already knew. Which is why the post that engendered this minor fooforaw had nothing…repeat, nothing…whatever to do with you. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. I tell you once, I tell you twice, what I tell you three times is true: wasn’t about you.
And yeah, the truth is the best I can do. Believe what you will.
So, there is no prison system in China, Iran, NK, Myanmar, Cuba or anywhere else that can more accurately have that moniker applied than Gtimo? Gitmo, and Gitmo alone is the “Gulag of our times”? Puh-leeeez…
There’s nothing in the modifier that says the old Gulags can’t still exist.
The prisons in China, Iran, NK, Myanmar, Cuba etc. are old style. Guantanamo is the new Coke. It is the new and pressing human rights abuse of our times.
That’s not terribly flattering to the USA, but that doesn’t make it untrue. To be, arguably, untrue, AI would have had to say “Guantanamo is a Gulag.” They didn’t.
No, it’s not the “Gulag or our times”. It’s not the great civil rights abuse. The guy just wanted to be sensationalistic, that’s all. But all it does is detract from a reasoned debate.
The Amnesty International report actually covers over 140 countries and focuses on the abuses of human rights within those countries. I am amazed at those who get more upset over the choice of a single word than over the implications of the report.
In fairness to both sides, these quotes should be read in context. And the context should be read in context. (I have not read all of the really long section on Guantanamo.)
From what I have read, the first paragraph summarizes AI’s accusations. The last paragraph summarizes my own feelings about the irony of the Bush Administration’s choices.
Well, you made an assertion - that we are not at war. Now you cannot or are unwilling to show any legitimate, authoritative cite that backs up your claim.
Denial isn’t proof, except for you.
As is often the case, you have made an assertion, and are now simply lying thru your teeth about what you said.
could you pass on the relevant material from this registration only site?
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Which allegations, specifically? I want to be sure that we aren’t conflating claims here. The ones that came from the Amnesty 2005 report. that I quoted.