Guantanamo Gulag
Writes law prof. Jonathan Turley in the Los Angeles Times, "Although certainly tiny compared with Chinese or Soviet models, the facility operated by the U.S. can no longer be defined as a prison or even a military camp. It is an American gulag, holding hundreds of prisoners without trial or access to the courts. In fairness to the Soviets, it must be noted that at least their prisoners got sham trials. This makes Camp Delta an even more extreme variation on the gulag theme."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yawn. So what, let 'em rot.
Spare me the bullshit Mr. Law Professor.
I've said it before: Hit & Run is nothing more than a junior Free Republic. Do any of the posters even read Reason? Could they if they tried?
" This makes Camp Delta an even more extreme variation on the gulag theme."
What disgusting propaganda. Common sense tells that that most (if not all) of the prisoners are enemy fighters.
If camps are just or not, it is idiocy to compare this to the gulags, where millions of COMPLETELY INNOCENT CITIZENS were butchered. This is like comparing the killing of Saddam with the murder of jews in the Holocaust.
This deliberate butchering of language and stategic misformation by our Leftist "civil liberatarian allies" only makes me more suspecious of their real inentions. Is it right to lock up foreigners without trial? That is an important issue to debate, but comparing it to genocide stinks of dishonesty!
"I've said it before: Hit & Run is nothing more than a junior Free Republic. Do any of the posters even read Reason? Could they if they tried?" Huh, Tony, nice moniker there BTW, how does this flow from the above? Being a bit dense and slow, not hip and with it I was lost by your "logic."
Any way, it's not a Gulag, it's a Stalag... Don't think that Kurt Vonnegut got a trial, and he was behind barbed wire. Several hundred thousand Germans were behind barbed wire in the US and the UK, without trial, as POW's. This is the equivalent for "Illegal Combatants." POW's don't get trials, they get imprisoned until the war is over or they are exchanged.
Of course, if you're from the Lew Rockwell/antiwar.com crowd Stalag=Gulag as Bush=Hitler, because the taxes=robbery, war=murder and conscription=slavery and any state is a dictatorship, even if only a dictatorship in waiting.
Yeah, Joe, and Freepers see the world as follows:
War=Liberation
Incarceration=Liberation
Taxes=Liberation
Except, of course, when a Democrat's in the White House.
Both LRC and Free Repbublic are sites for idiots. And you can quote me on that.
You'd be right at home on FreeRepublic! Could W. do any wrong in your adoring eyes?
The traditional definition of a gulag is somewhere you lock up domestic "enemies" - in other words, a nation's own citizens who are thought troublesome by the Dear Leaders for one reason or another.
To the contrary Gitmo is full of people picked up in Afganistan. Maybe a few other places. I dunno. But, they're not citizens of the US.
It's a weird quasi-POW situation, not a gulag. When we start sending US citzens to Gitmo, then it's a gulag.
I don't doubt some people in the Adminstration would like to do that, but I don't think it's going to happen. Maybe if there's another terrorist attack and some scary Patriot II+ thing is rammed through. . . who knows.
He can do lots, TB. But that doens't mean I won't think rationally about his policies.
I most certainly think it's a POW camp - these are all people detained or captured during our invasion of Afganistan, where (correct me if I'm wrong) we actually went to war with a government (the Taliban) and kicked them out. Of course, now that the war is over, it is still a good question to ask what are we going to do with these people? Try the leaders as war criminals and send everyone else back, would be the correct answer. They aren't doing either of these things and I think that is something that should be questioned.
Luckily, I don't have to see things in A=B terms... but try to reason things out. So War=Murder or War=Liberation, Taxes=Robbery or Taxes=Necessary Services. I've moved on past Bush=Hitler.
So, Tony, do you object to Gitmo or not? One person questioned holding the prisoners past the end of the war in Afghanistan. That's a valid question. My response is, they need to be held an indefinite period of time. They weren't, most of them, Taliban, but rather Chechens, Arabs, and other non-Afghanis fighting FOR the Taliban or al-Queada. So, releasing them is only to release them back into the world of terrorism again. They are not akin to German POW's or American POW's held until one side lost the Second World War. These are prisoners in a war on terror, not simply one nation. They are fighters against the West and as long as they support militant Islam and there are international groups supporting terror can we let these people go. In short, when will the war be over?
Yet, can we hold prisoners functionally forever? I can't see that either. So, what is the compromise position that can protect us from radical Chechens who wish to impose the Sharia on all of us and still preserve a realistic chance for freedom for the incarcerated?
"they get imprisoned until the war is over or they are exchanged"
Of course, the credibility is helped if you first actually declare war. If you don't declare it, then it can't technically ever be over.
And what kind of sucker lets a presidential administration get away with the "common sense" argument while all the citizens are subject to the word of law?
"They are not akin to German POW's or American POW's held until one side lost the Second World War. These are prisoners in a war on terror, not simply one nation. They are fighters against the West..."
The thing is, big-J Joe, sez who? If the people being held are actually terrorist operative, then I'm ok with holding them. But how do we know they aren't just guys who joined their country's army? There was absolutely no due process here that I can see, just the word of a militay officer, with no need for him to show he was right, and no opportunity to prove him wrong.
Maybe not a gulag, but pretty f-ed up.
This is the problem with overwrought hysteria... people get so busy pointing out the obvious flaws in the hysteria, they overlook the issue of whether there are real problems.
Having some kind of outside oversight in the classification of POWs would be good; the problem at this point is finding an outside agency that would do the job well, being properly skeptical of the claims of both the US government and the detainees.
Let's say you had the power to force an oversight team in to classify these prisoners.... who would be on it, and why? Keeping in mind that it should be people the Bush administration might possibly accept.
"And what kind of sucker lets a presidential administration get away with the "common sense" argument while all the citizens are subject to the word of law?"
This is the key thing I think more people should be focusing on. The hypocrisy of our whole government institution is just amazing. And I'm not saying this in an anti-bush way, both the left and right are equally guilty.
"And what kind of sucker lets a presidential administration get away with the "common sense" argument while all the citizens are subject to the word of law?"
The prisoners are not US citizens.
Craig,
I'm not looking for a Hague tribunal here. Hell, Bush appointed judges would be fine by me. I just want to make sure we're not holding some poor bastard who gave the finger to the wrong Major.
If Donald Rumsfeld caught the paperboy messing around with his granddaughter, got pissed off, and signed the papers declaring him an illegal enemy comabatant, there is no method in the system for that declaration to be undone.
"If Donald Rumsfeld caught the paperboy messing around with his granddaughter, got pissed off, and signed the papers declaring him an illegal enemy combatant, there is no method in the system for that declaration to be undone."---*SIGH* As someone HAS pointed out already, THEY ARE NOT US CITIZENS... We held Germans from 1943-until probably 1946, no charges, they were POW's. They were combatants, not criminals.
So again, what is the reasonable position about holding combatants in an ill-defined war on terror. These guys are more than likely NOT Afghanis, they are foreign troops/combatants in Afghanistan fighting for the Taliban &/or or Al-Quaida. It is a reasonable fear/assumption that if we release these gentleman tomorrow, that they will hie themselves off to the nearest training camp for continued service against the Great Satan. What do we do, let them go, to see them again or hold them until death? Neither seems a reasonable alternative to me.
Some one mentioned "declaring war.' OK, who do we declare war on. That's a nice legalistic argument, but it runs afoul of reality. Hamas, Hizbollah, Al-Quaida aren't states we can declare war on. If you want, I'm for declaring war on Iran and Syria as supporters OF terrorism, but would you support that? This idea of declaring war is a red herring as far as I'm concerned. Most of our combat has NOT been in declared wars. In fact, the bloodiest conflict in US history was a rebellion that was never declared a war. So, "declaring war" is merely a way of diverting attention to legalisms, not solutions.
" So, "declaring war" is merely a way of diverting attention to legalisms, not solutions."
Especially since congress gave full support on both Afganistan and Iraq.
Illegal combatants (as defined by the Geneva Convention) like these al Qaeda type are typically just executed.
Perhaps the prisoners themselves think that Gitmo is a preferable option, even if liberals in this country would rather see us stick more closely to the terms of the Convention.
Or do those liberals even know what they're talking about? Wait, what am I asking?
As I've read, about 1/2 the people at Gitmo are Afghanis, the other 1/2 are supposedly tied in directly with Al Qaeda. I believe theyr segregated along those lines as well. Quite frankly, and let me blunt about this, I don't think the US administration knows what it wants to do with them. As to the point of them being non-US citizens, those who have posted this are right, but that hardly addresses the issue of what should be done with these mostly low on the totem pole prisoners (very few of them appear to be anything more than grunts) over the long haul, nor does it speak to the moral obligation (and I believe such an obligation exists) of the US government to eventually settle their status. And whether they are US citizens or not, the rule of law should apply to them.
Croesus, two points.... "low-Level" terrorists are still terrorists. All but 4 of the 9-11 terrorists were "low level." 3,000 people are dead at the hands of "low level" terrorists. Low level is not the same as harmless. So, I keep asking, "What is a reasonable standard for holding these people?" I don't want to keep them forever, but what is an alternative? I sincerely want one. I don't want philosophy I want an alternative. I don't want "Concerns" I want answers.
"the rule of law should apply to them."-I think it has been. They are ILLEGAL combatants. They are not simply legal combatants, uniformed soldiers in the service of a nation-state. They are technically civilians, employed in terrorism, hence illegal combatants. It is not ILLEGAL to receive AK training in Afghanistan? So they really aren't civilian criminals. What crime did they commit? They aren't soldiers...
I think International Law IS be being applied to these guys. I haven't read much SERIOUS questioning of their treatment. I have some Leftist screeds "condemning" the US the US, but without any reference to specific treaty obligations or requirements. Gitmo isn't Rikers Island, but these guys aren't civilian prisoners. They aren't strictly POW's. So, simply troll thru the various Geneva Conventions and quote me some law.... See it's easy to make a FALSE analogy, "Hey they can't do THAT! No one read them their rights!" or "Hey you have to be charged with a crime and arraigned. You just can't be detained without charge" But yes you can, IF IT'S NOT DOMESTIC LAW and it involves war. I am not convinced that LAW isn't be followed.
Law and policy can diverge. It MIGHT be legal to hold them at Gitmo indefinitely, but I don't think it good or moral policy. So, wit
All this sound and fury, signifying ... nothing.
How long will they be held? As long as is needed for Intelligence to suck salient info out of 'em, that's how long.
Besides, what do you care? Those creeps are committing suicide left and right in Gitmo. And isn't this a safer place for that to happen -- away from the crowded buses, restaurants, and shopping malls where they'd normally perform such vile work?
Guantanamo is simply facilitating their quest for those 72 virgins, without them having to take dozens of Jewish and American teenagers with them.
"And whether they are US citizens or not, the rule of law should apply to them."
Perhaps it should, but whether non-US citizens are protected by the constitution is a very murky question. The POW's have gotten a lot of attention, but their situation is not substantially different from that of the thousands of foreign nationals indefinitely detained by the INS. (a good overview of constitutional issues here: http://www.ciej.org/protected.html). And these are people who filled in the wrong form, not people who took up arms againt the US.
Although I personally spent a long time in the US (legally!) under low-level nervousness regarding my lack of rights, I didn't have an... intellectual? problem with it. Governments and their citizens have a reciprocal relationship of rights and responsibilities. It would be noble of the US government to lend these rights to foreigners run afoul of it, but it's not required of it by law.
Unless you count the UN Declaration of Human Rights, but I'd like that to hold sway in the world in the same part of my brain that would like a magic pony.
In any case, the comparison with a gulag, where millions were starved and worked to death, is simply revolting.
It is not a gastapo. It is a
No-Kill Terrorist Shelter
"Sydney" wrote: "...whether non-US citizens are protected by the constitution is a very murky question."
Not murky at all. The proscriptions against the limitation of human action in the Constitution almost always (maybe always?) specifies persons, not citizens. More to the point, this was clearly the intent. (see: "James Madison and the future of Limited Government")
Some of the comments raised in opposition to the article's questioning of the status of the detainees have been:
1. Shamefully callous:
"pills" wrote: "Yawn. So what, let 'em rot."
2. Ignorant of the facts:
"Wiz" wrote: "Illegal combatants (as defined by the Geneva Convention)...are typically just executed."
Or both:
"The Jew" wrote: "Those creeps are committing suicide left and right in Gitmo. And isn't this a safer place for that to happen -- away from the crowded buses, restaurants, and shopping malls"
General Wesley Clark said that roughly 80% of the detainees were "small fish" - Taliban officials in charge of security, anti-Northern Alliance propaganda operatives, local platoon leaders, etc. Not suicide bombers or terrorists of any kind. And even if a lack common decency (as is evident in some of these posts) throttles motivation for fairness, remember, that many times in history when governments have have mistreated foreigners and ignored the rule of law in their regard, this same mistreatment has then been hastend to be visited upon its own citizens.
Thank you, Rick, for injecting some sanity--not to mention LIBERTARIANISM-- into this discussion.
And that's all this is: DISCUSSIONS.
What, you think the goons at Gitmo are now going to let everybody go because they read these discussions?
Hopless,
Don't be so. People that read and participate in these discussions may lobby their congress people and senators and/or communicate to others that will as well. Remember; It's true that ideas have consequences.
"when NYC is nuked, consider that the end of libertarianism. we can thanks all you anti-war bozos for this."
In a time of hyper-interventionist foreign policy opposition to it is exactly what will lesson the chances of disaster.
"In a time of hyper-interventionist foreign policy opposition to it is exactly what will lesson the chances of disaster. "
essentially you suggest isolationism. that is fine in theory, but a foolish, suicidal and stupid strategy when the barbarians are already in the gates. doing nothing, which seems to be the anti-war bozo position, is not acceptable.
"essentially you suggest isolationism. that is fine in theory, but a foolish, suicidal and stupid strategy when the barbarians are already in the gates."
"in the gates."?
We have done Afghanistan, Iraq, had prominent citizens make vicious, hateful, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab staements. Yet, nothing. No more terrorist attacks. Not even, of the type of smaller scale, murderous barbarity that plagues the people of Israel, to which we would be practically defenceless.
It's an interventionist foriegn policy, not the opposite that increases the risk. Note the reasons in Bin Ladin's fatwa. 1.Troops in Mecca.(thankfully the US is finally pulling out) 2.US support of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land the butchering of the Palestian people.3. The harmfull effects the sanctions have had on the Iraqi people.
Swift retaliation is hardly "doing nothing".
when NYC is nuked, consider that the end of libertarianism. we can thanks all you anti-war bozos for this.
Wow! Rick Barton, you are right! "Ideas [do] have consequences."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86022,00.html
EMAIL: nospam@nospampreteen-sex.info
IP: 218.244.111.116
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 05:11:43
People are just smart enough to not be happily ignorant.