Comments on: We don't need no stinkin' Geneva Convention

We don't need no stinkin' Geneva Convention

jackspace — Tue, 27 May 2003 13:27:48 -0800

We don't need no stinkin' Geneva Convention - US plans death camp - plans to turn Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-Ray into a death camp are in the works.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Tue, 27 May 2003 13:36:41 -0800

If this is anything close to a NAZI type operation, why is it buried in the back of a Murdoch newspaper and not on the cover of every news source on earth? Just curious?

By: ac

ac — Tue, 27 May 2003 13:42:03 -0800

Conservative media bias, of course! *runs away*

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Tue, 27 May 2003 13:43:14 -0800

Urge to become hermit from all news media rising every day... Thank you so much, Mr. Nader. You fucking attention whore.

By: kickingtheground

kickingtheground — Tue, 27 May 2003 13:49:50 -0800

Somewhat loaded language, no?

By: trharlan

trharlan — Tue, 27 May 2003 13:57:32 -0800

Godwin via juxtaposition?

By: JollyWanker

JollyWanker — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:05:11 -0800

Um... jackspace? You wouldn't have anything like, oh... corroboration... for this single-sourced, sensationalistic charge would you? (Exactly, Space Coyote... I wonder how that asshat gets to sleep at night...)

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:08:55 -0800

Not to nitpick before we start drawing the inevitable Bush=Hitler conclusions, but didn't the Nazi regime systematically kill any and all Jew, Gypsy, Homosexual, et al without even pretending to be discriminate? If they execute people at Guantanamo (if indeed this story is true) it sounds as though it will be based on a prisoner's avowed terrorist ideology & palpable threat to the US. Not exactly the same as sending folks to the gas chamber en masse. Also, I don't think Hitler was ever in the habit of releasing Jews after interrogation was over. Nor were the Jews affiliated with terrorist cells who bombed German civilians. But I digress. I'm by no means defending the outright execution of these people or even defending their internment at Camp X-Ray. But I'd like to a pose a question for rhetorical purposes: Where do you with avowed terrorists who, by now, have exponential hatred for the US after their imprisonment? Place them gently back in their home country? Why should we think for a second that some of them wouldn't quickly mobilize and harm us? We are infidels to them on principle, regardless of our diplomatic blunders in the Middle East. Should they be tried in the international court?

By: Bryant

Bryant — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:13:31 -0800

I'm unclear as to why we can't simply try them in a civil court.

By: bshort

bshort — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:16:37 -0800

I'm unclear as to why we can't simply try them in a civil court. I think they're trying to avoid getting any pesky lawyers or judges involved. After all, we know they're guilty. Otherwise we wouldn't have called them terrorists, right?

By: rdr

rdr — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:19:00 -0800

it sounds as though it will be based on a prisoner's avowed terrorist ideology & palpable threat to the US Executing people based on their ideology.... This is turning into a lovely country.

By: me3dia

me3dia — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:22:41 -0800

This story is a re-reporting of something that appeared in The Mail on Sunday, for godsakes. Why not post a National Enquirer rewrite of a Globe article?

By: neurodoc

neurodoc — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:26:19 -0800

Here's another story about "Camp Delta", that also refers to the execution facilities. (Being an ignorant American, can anyone tell me if the Daily Telegraph is considered a reliable news source?)

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:32:46 -0800

it sounds as though it will be based on a prisoner's avowed terrorist ideology & palpable threat to the US. Which will be determined, according to approved military policy, by anything as little as an American army official or even a fellow prisoner claiming witness to said accused actions, followed by verdicts with no appeals. If not Hitler, this is at the very least Kafka. And dhoyt, what you're ignoring is the outright hypocrisy the U.S. would take if this actually happened to our troops... if Iraq had announced that they had captured a few hundred Americans, then decided they would be held for over a year without counsil, in some cases hooded and chained to the ground, before appearing before a judge which could order their deaths without the need for physical evidence, the idea that anyone would suggest "well, fair's fair" is laughable. As would the Iraqi argument that those Americans can't just be released- after all, they're known affiliates of infedel aggressors. In other words, the only thing more horrifying than the actual action of the X-Ray detentions is the ignorant simplicity of the reason for its existence: we're doing this because we can and they can't.

By: Blue Stone

Blue Stone — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:37:25 -0800

It would seem like a logical progression. First the US essentially kidnaps these people, holds them in a place where it knows it can't be held responsible for it's actions (something I find it hard to believe they can actually get away with) tortures them to break their will, processes them through a kangaroo court to provide a fig-leaf of lawfulness, and then executes them. All in one place. It's called efficiency; it saves tax dollars! What I don't get is how they can get away with the whole Guantanamo Bay set-up, to begin with. Don't the US Govt. have to abide by US laws, regardless of where they are? And UN Human Rights Laws... And where was the independent tribunal that said that these people were not prisoners of war (as the GC requires?) sigh

By: Flitcraft

Flitcraft — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:38:06 -0800

The Telegraph seems to be the original source of the story, neurodoc. It's a British right-wing paper slightly more elevated than the Mail on Sunday - which is a rag. It's also the paper which broke the George Galloway story. So it's hard to say - they're no friends of the anti-war movement who would break a story on bad conditions at Guantanomo out of sympathy with the prisoners. If you look at the story they're talking in terms of 'possible' plans, it's not as definite as it has been made to sound in other sources. It's interesting and not incredible ( given Bush's enthusiasm for the death penalty), but I'd want to see it confirmed from somewhere else.

By: cbrody

cbrody — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:46:55 -0800

neurodoc, The Daily Telegraph is a national newspaper with a conservative reputation (it's not a "rag", just a right-wing mouthpiece), and yes, the story is to be taken seriously. I don't find this step very surprising, considering that the US has blatantly disregarded international opinion (not to mention international law) as regards the Guantanamo prisoners.

By: fold_and_mutilate

fold_and_mutilate — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:47:10 -0800

Not to nitpick before we continue hearing from the inevitable, lame, knee-jerk "my Bush, right or wrong" apologists, but exactly when did the nightmare of a sentence of death for "terrorist ideology" and "palpable threat" become anything more than exactly what other totalitarian regimes routinely use to rationalize their cowardly little persecutions? Who knows about the link story. But what is apparent is the realization that some Americans are so very traumatized by events over the last few years that they will overlook law, ethics, human rights, simple human decency, etc, to restore in themselves a pablum-warm, milky, illusion of safety. From Guantanamo Bay to Baghdad, the knee-level wind has become a gale. Sad....

By: twiggy

twiggy — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:55:15 -0800

If this report is true, anyone defending it deserves to be bitchslapped from here to next tuesday. You cannot convict someone of the crime of "being a threat to society". You cannot execute a US Citizen who hates the US and wants it destroyed unless he/she ACTS on that hatred. Hating the US, wanting to kill people, etc, is not a crime. Saying that it's not a crime here, but it is a crime if we captured you somewhere else, is INSANE. Yeah, you can sit here and say "but they're not US citizens so they're not bound by the same laws". Fine, you've just flat out said "US Citizens are a higher form of life" - shut up and go back to your republican party benefit dinner. IF this is legit, and I'd like to see more sources of it before I'll accept it, anyone in support of such a thing is sick. You cannot execute people who were captured because they're "suspected terrorists" who may potentially do something bad, but haven't yet. You wanna try them and imprison them because you found explosive-building material on their person or in their home? Fine, do it, and do it FAIR. But saying it's okay to execute people because they "might" be a threat? That's sheer insanity.

By: specialk420

specialk420 — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:58:06 -0800

why not have a death camp? - our buddy and recipient of much foreign aid in uzbekistan, president karimov, boils people to death

By: twiggy

twiggy — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:58:10 -0800

After I clicked submit, I realized I also wanted to add: Keep in mind that the only time killing people who "may" be a threat is considered acceptable is called "war", and is also qualified with the term "pre-emptive strike". Those terms do not apply here. We're not at war with the people in Guantanamo bay. They're prisoners.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Tue, 27 May 2003 14:59:18 -0800

lame, knee-jerk "my Bush, right or wrong" apologists I can only imagine you're addressing me with that tired & predictable screed Foldy, old friend. Which is interesting since I tried to pose a fairly level-headed question to others about what alternative solutions are, in addition to saying I didn't defend the execution or the internment. And by the way: I voted for Gore, not Bush. (tousles Foldy's blonde little mane)

By: neurodoc

neurodoc — Tue, 27 May 2003 15:01:09 -0800

Flitcraft and cbrody, thanks for the info on the Telegraph. I think I need the "Idiots Guide to British Newspapers". BTW, did anyone else flash back to the film Marathon Man when looking at the "Dental Care Facility" photo in the Telegraph article? Somehow this image had exactly the opposite effect on me than I think it was supposed to have...

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Tue, 27 May 2003 15:03:54 -0800

I guess I should've phrased my prior post differently: If there are Guantanamo prisoners who have contributed to Al Quaeda, actively taken part in terrorist acts and vowed to destroy the US, and there is compelling evidence of these things, what do we do with the prisoners? I didn't mean to suggest earlier that they be prosecuted simply for having perceived dangerous ideologies. I think it's a valid question.

By: salmacis

salmacis — Tue, 27 May 2003 15:20:56 -0800

If, and it's a big if, these reports ar true, then the American administration is gearing up to commit the same sort of war crimes Saddam was accused (guilty) of. No wonder the Americans refused to have anything to do with the ICC. And dhoyt, the answer to your question is simple: these people deserve the same legal protection as the rest of us. If they are found guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism in a civil court then they should be locked up for a very long time. Otherwise, they should not be there at all. The collapse of the Soviet Union has left the world in an unstable state. America is increasingly acting as the kind of rogue state that it denounces. Some kind of balance from the rest of the world might at least make America stop and think.

By: filchyboy

filchyboy — Tue, 27 May 2003 15:25:14 -0800

dhoyt, I believe that is what courts of law are for.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Tue, 27 May 2003 15:28:28 -0800

If there are Guantanamo prisoners who have contributed to Al Quaeda, actively taken part in terrorist acts and vowed to destroy the US, and there is compelling evidence of these things, what do we do with the prisoners? I didn't mean to suggest earlier that they be prosecuted simply for having perceived dangerous ideologies. I think it's a valid question. Are you saying that the secret summary execution of prisoners--killing them via a totallly opaque process outside the justice system of this country, civil or military, let alone to according to the provisions of international law--is an acceptable option for you? Just asking.

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Tue, 27 May 2003 15:30:03 -0800

I'm a Telegraph reader and trust it as far as one can trust a newspaper. I couldn't find the article in question but here's an insiders' view of the camp, from that same paper. Btw, I don't believe the story. Also, no disrespect, jackspace - as I got the gist - but I found the link to the Holocaust in extremely bad taste and ahistorical to boot. For an appropriate comparison, perhaps if Bush clearly stated his wish to exterminate all Muslims, blaming them for everything that's wrong with the world. Otherwise, no.

By: RylandDotNet

RylandDotNet — Tue, 27 May 2003 15:30:13 -0800

...what do we do with the prisoners? I would have thought it was obvious. We try them in a court of law (under UN auspices, preferably, but... well, lets leave that aside for now). Present evidence of their guilt, allow competent counsel to present evidence for their innocence. If they're guilty, convict them and put them in prison. If they're innocent, let them go. In other words, follow US and international law in the treatment of prisoners. A speedy, fair trial. What's the difficulty? What isn't blindingly fucking obvious? It just blows my mind that someone could even ask a question like that.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Tue, 27 May 2003 15:32:15 -0800

No wonder the Americans refused to have anything to do with the ICC. Bush is a villain, but placing our citizens under the jurisdiction of the ICC would require a constitutional amendment. (i.e. ain't gonna happen.)

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Tue, 27 May 2003 15:42:40 -0800

...is an acceptable option for you? Just asking. --y2karl No, it's not. For the third time. It just blows my mind that someone could even ask a question like that. And sorry for blowing your mind Ryland. I was asking the question a bit knowingly, since til now the US has skirted so many international laws and since the practical, internationally agreed-upon standards of due process you mentioned are probably not going to happen. Since the US has not interned and attempted to prosecute perceived threats en masse like this since WWII, I thought it was interesting to ponder what exactly will happen and what should happen. Of course a fair, internationally-mandated trial would be great. But is this Camp X-Ray scenario in any way a "special case" since there is no formally-mandated war between the US and Pakistan/Saudi Arabia/Egypt, et al? If this was a conventional declared war, the point would be moot.

By: spazzm

spazzm — Tue, 27 May 2003 15:47:06 -0800

This is only fair - the US won over the USSR, and now they get to be Evil Empire. And these people have to be executed without a trial because they hate freedom, of course.

By: jackspace

jackspace — Tue, 27 May 2003 15:49:50 -0800

MiguelCardoso, two years ago, we wouldn't even be talking about death camps or Gitmo Bay. Generally, things start small (Bier Hall Puscht) and grow larger. If you truly belive in the American system, then why not give these people a fair trial? Also, releasing these people who happen to have a chip on their shoulder, back into their countries . . . IF they are innocent, seems to be about on par with releasing someone who was wrongly convicted here in our own courts. Speaking as a veteran of the first Iraq War, it worries me that our own troops will face ever-increasing brutal treatment by their captors since we no longer seem to respect the Geneva Convention.

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Tue, 27 May 2003 16:01:33 -0800

Fair enough, jackspace. You have a very good point - specially regarding the Geneva Conventions. What I was disputing was your comparison to the Shoah. Your argument is good and shocking enough as it is. I'm probably still traumatized from the Portuguese Nobel Prize-winning novelist José Saramago's stupid comparison of the Israeli occupation to Auschwitz. I still feel that one should be very careful of comparisons. Genocidal extermination and the Holocaust deserve their own historical category. Things don't have to be "like them" to be evil and terribly wrong. It's a bit facile and unfeeling. Thanks for answering too - things do start small and we do well to jump on them straight away; you're quite right. Shalom!

By: Keyser Soze

Keyser Soze — Tue, 27 May 2003 16:16:11 -0800

Its like trying to boil a frog. If you throw him in when its boiling, hell jump out. If you put one in and slowly raise the heat, the frog wont know its being boiled alive. Hows that for a loaded comment?

By: matteo

matteo — Tue, 27 May 2003 16:25:01 -0800

...what do we do with the prisoners? it can get pretty difficult, and sometimes embarrassing, to try alleged -- or even admitted -- Al Qaeda fighters and Taliban in a court of law. because a real trial gives the defendant certain rights that make the prosecutor's work much more difficult -- and the White House wouldn't really like to see those alleged Taliban freed by liberal unpatriotic Clinton-appointed judges because of "technicalities" like no witnesses, weak or circumstantial evidence and the like, right? (remember, Miranda was a rapist -- sometimes defendants rights help the guilty just as much as they help the innocent -- not a good reason to throw defendants rights out of the window, one supposes. even if we'd better not check the Hon Justices Scalia and Thomas ideas about that, either)

By: stoneegg21

stoneegg21 — Tue, 27 May 2003 16:28:55 -0800

The frog thing is a complete urban legend, and backwards. If you throw a frog in cool water and start raising the heat, it'll jump out when it becomes uncomfortable, so long as it CAN jump out. If the pot's walls are too high, no go. If you throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, it'll burn alive pretty fast. Just like a human would. Off-topic, I know. It's just that urban legend bugs the life out of me.

By: keswick

keswick — Tue, 27 May 2003 17:07:58 -0800

Poor frog.... *sniff*

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Tue, 27 May 2003 17:18:57 -0800

I think the comparison to Hitler is inappropriate, as Bush is not contemplating the extermination of an entire ethnic group. He's closer to Stalin.

By: Ignatius J. Reilly

Ignatius J. Reilly — Tue, 27 May 2003 18:22:04 -0800

And these people have to be executed without a trial because they hate freedom, of course. Brilliantly phrased. That people can be executed for their ideologies is disheartening. Check my posting history -- I have exactly zero Godwin's violations on my record. Well, that's all about to come to an end. While no out-and-out comparison could (or should) be drawn between Nazi Germany and the modern-day US, it is nigh time that we begin learning from their lessons. History is some complicated shit, and undoubtedly some parallel could be drawn between any two societies. That abundance of data should still never be a reason to ignore anything that it might teach us: that blind obedience kills, that a democracy can melt down to nothing fast, and that normal people can think absurd shit to be normal under the right circumstances. The Bill of Rights was meant as a list of things that the government can not do, even with popular support. That we are now dismantling these apparati more or less without protest speaks horribly for America's future.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Tue, 27 May 2003 20:00:37 -0800

For the last week I've had Bobby Dylan's "Desolation Row" running through my head - "They're selling postcards of the hanging, they're painting the passports brown. The beauty parlour is filled with sailors, the circus is in town...... At midnight, all the agents and the superhuman crew go out and round up everyone who knows more than they do. And they take them to the factory where the heart attack machine is strapped across their shoulders, and then the kerosene is brought down fom the castles by insurance men who go check to make sure no one's escaping to Desolation Row."

By: mr. man

mr. man — Tue, 27 May 2003 21:20:14 -0800

The reason that the US can imprison these people is twofold. First, US law does not apply to non-citizens and if their country doesn't do anything to protect them, then the US can do whatever they want to these people. Secondly, the US has stated for a while that since these people were in an illegal war, then the Geneva conventions don't apply and the US can do what ever they want to them. As for the executions, this is the same method the US army uses when trying its own soldiers. Just something to know.

By: alicesshoe

alicesshoe — Tue, 27 May 2003 21:49:08 -0800

During WWII, when "prisoners" escaped concentration camps and told the world what exactly the Nazis were doing, no one [North Americans in particular] believed them. Just for the sake of argument, IF the article was true... would it be beyond Bush & Co.'s, breadth? You have to ask yourself, what is his agenda? On the topic of law, civil or otherwise, was OJ guilty? Did money and fame have anything to do with the verdict? I have to crash now, I'll be back.

By: Bryant

Bryant — Tue, 27 May 2003 21:53:44 -0800

Oddly enough, US law does apply to non-citizens. If you don't believe me, try going down to the nearest college and punching a foreign student in the nose.

By: holycola

holycola — Wed, 28 May 2003 01:11:30 -0800

Since the US has not interned and attempted to prosecute perceived threats en masse like this since WWII, I thought it was interesting to ponder what exactly will happen and what should happen. For the sake of a different discussion, I think the war on drugs can fall under that definition.

By: holycola

holycola — Wed, 28 May 2003 01:31:28 -0800

And for what it's worth, I think dhoyt put up a decent rhetorical question in the post with Where do you with avowed terrorists who, by now, have exponential hatred for the US... and that it deserves better treatment than it's gotten by and large. Controversial questions aren't always bait, and For myself, I can say I think people in charge should think about the consequences of treating people in their charge like shit, should those charges regain their freedom of movement. And yes, I think the ICC is a good place to try them - good suggestion.

By: humuhumu

humuhumu — Wed, 28 May 2003 01:32:52 -0800

A prison with an execution chamber does not equal a 'death camp' - and certainly not one which is akin to the concentration camps of WWII. The US is deciding what to do with this place and with the prisoners inside it. They think that some of these people are guilty of terrorist acts, and think that if they are, they should be tried and convicted of them. They think that if they are convicted of them, they should be executed, because that is what would probably happen within the US boundaries. The problems with this are that: they will be trying them in secret; there will be no jury; they will tried by the military; there will be no appeal; and there will probably be no access to lawyers for the prisoners, either. That's. Not. Right. Whatever... this ain't a 'death camp'.

By: skylar

skylar — Wed, 28 May 2003 01:52:06 -0800

America believes in Liberty, Freedom for All, The American Way, Fairness, Opportunity.... ... and trials without juries or appeals followed by executions, on islands outside of the juristiction of international or US law....? If it was Saddam Hussein or the Taliban treating US prisoners of war like this, we'd all be up in arms.

By: biffa

biffa — Wed, 28 May 2003 02:04:00 -0800

Whatever... this ain't a 'death camp' Gulag ok?

By: johnnyboy

johnnyboy — Wed, 28 May 2003 04:20:16 -0800

Pardon the simplification that I am about to embark upon. The present US administration may be about to execute purpoted terroroists, Blair has emptied the h-blocks in an attempt to instill peace in northern ireland. So, what exactly is the right approach.

By: Dunvegan

Dunvegan — Wed, 28 May 2003 04:41:46 -0800

At Camp X-Ray, America is dangerously unchecked in it's handling of prisoners in more than one way.

By: acrobat

acrobat — Wed, 28 May 2003 06:08:23 -0800

Just as a reminder (dhoy). The Nazis in Germany didn't just start burning Jews from day one; first (1933) they started placing stickers on non-jewish shops (this in not a jewish business); then they started attacking intelectuals (Jews and others); then they made Jews wear arm-bands that identified them as Jews. And finally (1943) they were gassing them. See? And, according to the words of a German pastor (don't remember the name right now) writing after the war: "First they attacked the communists and I was a little worried but, after all, I wasn't a communist so I did nothing. Then they started attacking the socialists and I was a little bit more worried, but I wasn't a socialist so I did nothing. Then they attacked the writers, the poets, the Jews, but I wasn't a writer, a poet, a Jew and even though I was a bit more worried, I did nothing. Then, when they started attacking the Church I felt that, as a man of the Church, I had to do something. But by then, it was too late..." See?

By: monkey.pie.baker

monkey.pie.baker — Wed, 28 May 2003 07:24:38 -0800

Whatever... this ain't a 'death camp' Right... they are "freedom camps" where prisoners are lead into "justice chambers" and exposed to "liberty gas." Then their corpses can be tossed into unmarked "patriot holes." Now doesn't everyone feel better about this process?

By: pjgulliver

pjgulliver — Wed, 28 May 2003 07:43:53 -0800

I believe there are serious due-process worries here. But what is being established here is emphatically not a death camp. The term "death camp" connotes a facility who's prime prupose is to kill large numbers of people. Killing would be this facilities raison d'etre. More specifically, "death camp" refers to the camps constructed by the Nazi regime in Europe in the 1940s. I agree with Miguel that using the term "death camp" in relation to Gitmo in some way's dishonors (that may not be the right word) the victims and survivors of the Shoah. What is essentially being built at Gitmo is a standard US maximum security prison, with an execution facility. Granted, there are severe legal concerns here. But two things. First, this is NOT a death camp. And second, the US as a government (and this has been true under both Dems and Reps) and a majority of its population, believes that the government has a right to execute those convicted of horrific crimes.

By: majcher

majcher — Wed, 28 May 2003 08:41:09 -0800

"Death camp" or no, the situation at X-Ray is unacceptable. Anyone who thinks that people should not be granted basic human rights, American or not, "terrorist" or not, is as bad as we believe our enemies to be. Please see the reasoned responses regarding the use of the American legal system above. That being said, what is to be done? I am an American citizen. I believe in the principles upon which this country was founded. The course that the government has been taking in the last several years is blatantly contrary to those principles. What to do? You are a German citizen in the 1930s, and you see things around you going terribly wrong. The gut response to this situation is, "get the hell out of Germany" - consider, now, what good that would do if Germany was the most powerful country in the world at the beginning of the decade. Where would you go to escape the influence of the Bad People in charge? What would you do? Me, I'm beaten down. I vote, and bastards are still elected - or appointed. Civil disobedience and protesting have become just another sideshow. Violence, or threatening violence against the system is futile and counter-productive. The only thing I can imagine myself doing is trying to put it out of my mind, and letting things run their course. There must be a better way.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 28 May 2003 09:00:41 -0800

The only thing I can imagine myself doing is trying to put it out of my mind, and letting things run their course. And that is precisely why the bastards get elected. Continue to vote otherwise you just make it harder for those of us who actually do give a fuck. It was one election and a mid-term, its not like its been decades here, its only been 3 years. What is essentially being built at Gitmo is a standard US maximum security prison, with an execution facility. What? Where did you get that idea? First of all, if the article is even remotely accurate, then there has been some rumor circulating about maybe thinking about possibly putting in an execution facility at the military facility that has been EXTREMELY closely monitored from day one by the international press, human rights organizations and the Red Cross. You are right, there is no "death camp" but there is no maximum security prison facility going up either.

By: pjgulliver

pjgulliver — Wed, 28 May 2003 09:07:01 -0800

All I meant Pollomacho was that what was considering being built at Gitmo didn't seem like anything wildly out of the ordinary to me. I guess I refer to the prison at X Ray as a maximum security prison because, well, it is. Its a crudely and quickly constructed prison, but it is also probably the most secure prison facility under federal control.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 28 May 2003 09:17:31 -0800

Sorry PJ, I think we are actually on the same side of the table on this one.

By: pjgulliver

pjgulliver — Wed, 28 May 2003 09:45:36 -0800

Wow---that's gotta be a first!

By: acrobat

acrobat — Wed, 28 May 2003 10:20:23 -0800

pj, bare in mind camp x-ray was set up in Cuba so the US wouldn't have to abide by its own laws (foreign waters and Cuban at that).

By: riviera

riviera — Wed, 28 May 2003 10:51:32 -0800

All I meant Pollomacho was that what was considering being built at Gitmo didn't seem like anything wildly out of the ordinary to me. Do many pre-trial remand facilities in the US have execution chambers?

By: nofundy

nofundy — Wed, 28 May 2003 11:55:50 -0800

Wonder what kind of gas will be used for the executions? Perhaps a familiar brand to the Nazis? Just wait until Ashcroft gets the green light to start putting dissidents from the US there! The War on Drugs will really take off then and you best keep your mouth shut about it too! Sound like hyperbole? So did this s*it before it actually happened/s. Do not underestimate the lengths our current PNAC dictatorship will go to in order to remain in power!

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 28 May 2003 11:57:24 -0800

Do many pre-trial remand facilities in the US have execution chambers? No, and neither does Guantanamo Bay. Wow---that's gotta be a first! Ah, don't be so surprised, we have that scale for liberal/conservative and authoritarian/libertarian but the axis it doesn't gauge is rational/irrational. I'm just not sure a comparison between Hitler and Bush is due quite yet. I mean Gitmo is not Mathhausen, give me a break. Besides, a rumor passed on by a general that they may be considering talking about maybe throwing about the idea of weather or not a death chamber may or may not be feasible is not exactly the time to get up in arms. They get a little closer to actually building one and things could be different.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 28 May 2003 12:14:11 -0800

Please substitute "whether" where appropriate, stupid spell check.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Wed, 28 May 2003 12:39:32 -0800

Here's a US citizen who dissents and protests against the Cabal and may be a guest at Gitmo if Ashcroft gets his way! You must sacrifice your rights if you wish to save them. Orwell would be proud.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 28 May 2003 12:43:33 -0800

Do many pre-trial remand facilities in the US have execution chambers?>

By: son_of_minya

son_of_minya — Wed, 28 May 2003 18:38:58 -0800

The term "death camp" connotes a facility who's prime propose is to kill large numbers of people. Killing would be this facilities raison d'etre. More specifically, "death camp" refers to the camps constructed by the Nazi regime in Europe in the 1940s. I agree with Miguel that using the term "death camp" in relation to Gitmo in some way's dishonors (that may not be the right word) the victims and survivors of the Shoah.

This is exactly the argument used by Holocaust deniers, in reference to the German camps. The less radical among them may admit that there were some death camps -- but insist that they were all in Poland and none were in Germany. The sites make me uneasy, but white nationalist conspiracy theory does shed some light on how Nazis think. And, it's probably the most paranoid conspiracy out there, which sometimes makes for interesting reading. There's a real bizarre inter-mingling in the paranoid thoughts of Nazis and Anti-Nazis. Two points: 1) White nationalists like Ernst Zundel believe the Holocaust was mostly (if not all) propaganda, for the purpose of making the Zionist New World Order's planned Holocaust seem much more timid by comparison. 2) White nationalists support Saddam Hussein and the prisoners at Guantanamo as Anti-Imperialist freedom fighters. (May seem contradictory, but they don't believe the Third Reich was an empire.) Remember this: In the beginning, Hitler called the Jews terrorists. According to Hitler, they set fire to the Reichstag, and conspired against the homeland during WWI. As a nation among themselves, the Jews were enemies of the homeland during time of war...according to Hitler. The parallels between Camp X-Ray and Auschwitz are therefore not completely irrational. Not to mention the fact that after the creation of the Military Industrial Complex and Operation Paperclip, the United States government integrated Nazism into the Republic itself. Some conspiracy theorists actually claim this was the Nazis' plan from the beginning. So... Bush/Hitler links page. Flash presentation on the Prescott Bush-Nazi connection. Also note similarities to the Bush-bin Laden family connection.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Thu, 29 May 2003 07:19:03 -0800

First Bush and Hitler are equated, then Guantanamo bay is equated to Auschwitz, now anyone who feels differently is equated to white supremacists and holocaust deniers. Good lord! Take a deep breath, count to ten and get a grip! Trust me, there are no black shirts stomping around in their jack boots, setting fire to arab owned businesses, and raping muslim women in the streets around here, there WERE in Nazi Germany. We have yet to annex Canada to make a little more breathing room for the "pure American" peoples, nor invade Mexico and expel/enslave/exterminate its people for the same purpose. The democratic party may have lost both the Presidential and mid-term elections, yet they have not been outlawed, not even the Green Party nor the Socialist Workers Party have been outlawed or even censored. The media continue to criticize and even ridicule the President and the ruling party with little or no recourse, and yet somehow people find it possible to equate Bush and Hitler, which, of course they are free to do in a public forum still. Maybe Americans do need to lose their myriad freedoms for a little while just to knock some fucking sense into their heads and let them realize just how good they actually have things? We are a bunch of spoiled morons.

By: David Dark

David Dark — Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:49:27 -0800

~Applause~