Everyone has heard of Amnesty International's portrayal of Guantanamo Bay as "the gulag of our time." Many Democrats and even some Republicans have suggested shutting it down. Let me explain what seems to be wrong with this picture. We indeed claim the moral high ground in the war on terror. However, comparing Guantanamo, Abu Gharib, and somewhere in Afghanistan with gulags, Nazi concentration camps, and Cuban torture prisons is absolutely ludicrous. People in those places were beaten, starved, gassed, branded, raped, experimented on medically (with no anesthetic), worked to exhaustion (and eventually to death), and these tortures were brought on them for disagreeing with the establishment. What goes on at our facilities has ranged from posing nude, to sleep deprivation, to Christina Aguillera music (as torturous as that one sounds, it's really just annoying), to having female guards rub on them or be forced to look at nude female magazines, or flushing the Koran. Pardon me, but when was any of this tantamount to abuse or torture? Compared with the actual facilities used in the metaphors of human rights groups and liberals, this is merely humiliation. This is a far cry from torture. And these people are placed in these facilities for possibly being mass murderers, funding mass murderers, or conspiring to help mass murderers, not because they didn't agree with us. The increased coverage can also be easily explained. Earlier in the year (and the previous years of the war) the reports of this sort of "abuse" were coming out of the Pentagon. However, no news agency paid attention to them because there was so much else going on. Now the news world is straining--it's making 24-hour headlines of Michael Jackson, missing affluent females and lost Boy Scouts (probably dozens of which happen every month), so it's focusing on the scandal of the treatment of prisoners at our facilities. Not that the prisoners deserve to be treated in some of the ways that have actually happened by more sadistic guards, but to people who would rather die and endure massive physical pain in the name of Allah than give you information on terrorists, humiliation may be the only way to get to them so they give you information. I'm not condoning our treatment of certain prisoners (since it does look absolutely horrific in a Muslim world where people riot and kill over the flushing of a book. When was the last time Christians rioted when Marylin Manson burned a stack of Bibles?), but I would like to offer a little perspective to our friends in Congress and across the ocean.
Don't be daft. Your definition of "torture" is subjective. Your post reeks of the repugnant pomposity of one who insists that all share the same opinion without explaining why. There's a lot said in your post but: YOUR LOGIC FAILS to support your point. In fact, I am not sure where you even come close to succeeding in demonstrating to readers why labeling these "humiliations" as "torture" is crass. The second line of the fourth paragraph is a flat out non sequitur, simply restating your argument. Now for the bigger, better analysis: I am not sure why Guantanamo cannot be described as a living metaphor of gulags simply because the same inhumanities are not commited. It is akin to saying because the United States is not like Hitler's Germany, we cannot call the United States imperial. Metaphors take interpretation and as long as you are brave enough to dismiss another's interpretation via faulty logic, you can expect similar anality from me. (sometimes) Your claim that the techniques used in Guantanamo are "simply humiliation" is perhaps the daftest statement you make in your entire post. You don't give any logical reason at all aside from the idle speculation that the inmates are "possibly" related to 'mass murderers'. Perhaps you did not reason this to its logical implications, but that leaves you and your family open to similar 'humiliation' "simply" for being "possibly" linked to mass murderers. As for your cop out that the prisoners are not tortured because they disagree with US policy, that is quite incorrect. The US operates on a dual system; the "axis of evil" vs. the red, white, and blue; cowardly terrorists vs. brave young men and women. The image has been scattered through media outlets even to the point of labeling citizens of dissimilar opiniong as 'unpatriotic'. Now how much more these harborers of terrorists? Does it make sense to you to insist that America does not pursue those who, "possibly", have an active role in resisting her policy? Maybe if these things were done in secret, but no bones have been made about the country's righteous resolve. And so your claim that the detainees are not locked "because they didn't agree with us" remains completely unsubstantiated. This is something interesting. Not only because the first portion makes no sense whatsoever gramatically, but because you again have NO substantiation for claiming inmates would "rather die and endure massive physical pain in the name of Allah than give you information on terrorists". To be blunt, that is extremely stupid. You have a) already presumed guilt without the slightest iota of corroboration and now b) you pass sentence, claiming "torture", or "humiliation" (whichever euphemism suits you) is possibly the only way to extract information from prisoners. Just think of the implications of such a scenario, if your advice is ever taken by countries. Christians prefer to use the law and not force to impose their scruples in America. But of course, to you, that is not "tantamount" to the fervence of certain Muslims. If you are going to ramble without substantiating your thesis, then you might as well write one short sentence and be done done with it all.
Actually, I find less substance in your reply than in my post. The only thing you attack is my "logic." I see no rebuttals to what I actually said, which is quite substantial. I explain precisely what I mean and then follow a logical sequence. You seem to be dissecting abstract concepts to distract people from the meat of the issue, since I don't see the issue even discussed in your reply. And of course, there is the traditional personal insult in your reply, which is an obvious sign of the end of the proverbial intellectual rope. And actually, to answer what you did actually mention, torture is not subjective, as the Geneva Convention defines what constitutes torture and what methods are acceptable. The U.S. is currently not breaching these standards in practice.
Where is the personal insult? Apart from dissecting your comments and searching them for connectivity, did I call you any names? Also if you'd be so kind as to show me if there is indeed anything in your post to corroborate your message I would be extremely greatful. Are you also saying you did not intend for your post to follow any logical etiquette? That is, did you originally intend to fill it with non sequiturs? But please, first, I'm curious to see where these "personal insults" are. And as for what the Geneva Convention defines torture as, I am not aware that AI's indictment concerned itself with any such definition, are you?
I have to agree with TheMidnight12AM here. What is your nationality SouthStar? You sound European. I would like to know if you have ever read the Qur'an, or have any idea as to what these particular Muslim insurgents fear. Perhaps you have a better idea than interrogation? Perhaps you don't think information is important? Perhaps you'd like to see the United States' military and economic objectives in Iraq unaccomplished? Please answer coherently, addressing each point individualy, so this debate doesn't become a ramble. I asked many questions to see where you're coming from, as most people who would hold such an opinion have a hidden agenda of some sort (i.e. has nothing to do with Iraq). Oh, and to avoid any confusion, I am a United States citizen and patriot. I don't agree with the Iraq war, I'm just supporting my countrymen in arms.
These sound like personal insults to me. And I wasn't entirely aware logic had an "ettiquette." I presumed it was more of a mathematical or linear succession of thought, not a manners book. Back to the issue at hand: The basic difference between Abu Gharib/Gitmo and gulags/Nazis is the magnitude of the treatment of the prisoners and the reasons for their holding. As much as you might like to believe otherwise, the U.S. does not hold prisoners without probable cause. Those who turned out to have no connection have been duly released after being cleared. If they are in prison, there is a very good reason for them to be there, namely they are a threat to the U.S. or have raised enough suspicion to be ascribed that. The police don't roam the streets picking up random people and then give them "terrorist tests." They gather intelligence and monitor these people for weeks before the arrest, or they're picked up on the battlefield--which is an obvious sign they were fighting us. In short, there IS a reason for the prisoners to be held, and it is a good one: they hate us enough to die for it and take us with them. Secondly, the treatment of prisoners is largely humane, and the few reports coming out are relatively sparse compared to the number of prisoners actually held. Even the alleged cases of abuse are hard to substantiate, and their magnitude is nothing compared with gulags and camps. As for the metaphor of Hitler and America, that is another extreme metaphor. America, firstly, is not imperialist. Unlike European powers, who from 1500 to 1940 repeatedly colonized every area of the world for their own gain and literally raped the land of its resources, the U.S. has only occupied enemy states or in cases of liberation. We are not carving out colonies around the world or conquering other countries for our territory. The two countries we occupy already have transitional governments in place. America is hardly an imperialist nation, and Hitler's Germany was beyond imperialist. The very definition of the word is skewed in that comparison. And flintlock, the U.S. signed and ratified all four of the Geneva Conventions. If we didn't, why are we even worried about it? http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20020212.html
The geneva convention is largely moot in this case anyway. It doesn't apply to non-uniformed combatants. We treat prisoners there pretty well. They are fed well, they get medical treatment when needed, they aren't having their flesh stripped an inch at a time... What do you expect for them? Cable TV?
Absolutely. These are political criminals, not soldiers. They are classified as spies under the Geneva convention, and have no right whatsoever. Even France wouldn't be required to give them POW status, never mind treat them humanely. A nice hot shwarma sandwich every day is certainly something the Wehrmacht DEFs would have envied.
Yeah, I miss spy executions. What ever happened to the "fight to win" military doctrine? Those were the days man...
Even after independence, Britain still had massive influence over us (impressment, the War of 1812 where we got our capital burnt down, most of our exports and imports traveled through it, etc). It took a long time to wean off the UK.
Eh. I make no secret that, If I was alive in colonial days, I would be a tory. I think we have been getting back since then. We watched them go from a world spanning empire to a very minor player in international events. We pulled their asses out of the fire in two wars.
In many cases there is no evidence whatsoever that the men detained in US prison camps, or the prisons of US allies are terrorists or terrorists' accomplices. Certainly, they probably aren't being treated as badly as prisoners in the gulag- at least in the open US prisons. Some of the others in Egypt, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and the secret CIA-run prisons which have been alleged to exist are probably even worse. There are nothing like as many prisoners as there were in the gulag too. The US can proudly and truthfully boast, then, that it isn't behaving as badly as the USSR did under Stalin
If it's not illegal what they are doing in Guantanimo, then why don't the do it here in the States? Because they would be forced to conform to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (which they should be doing anyway). Read this carefully: If we don't have the rule of law, then the whole experiment we call the United States of America doesn't mean shit, and we are no better than dictators like Saddam or Hitler, or Pol Pot.
UCMJ here for reference: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm (802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER ) ((9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces. )
