8 ms·

Did they even have a fair trial? I always saw gitmo as a modern US gulag.

by cies 4y ago

coeneedell 4y ago
Not arguing for gitmo’s continued existence, but I would point out that the gulag system was a primary tool of oppression in the Soviet Union, and an estimated 18M soviet citizens were sent there. Over the course of Guantanamo’s existence under 1000 men and boys have been extrajudicially detained and tortured there. Expanding this well known data by an order of magnitude (plus a little) gives a conservative estimate of 50000 individuals extrajudicially detained under post 9/11 foreign policy (just a guess at totals based on roughly how many of these prisons were built in the bush era).
- AlecSchueler 4y ago
  The amount of people affected doesn't change the abstract nature of the thing, which is what the comparison tests on.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > The amount of people affected doesn't change the abstract nature of the thing, which is what the comparison tests on. Actually it kind of does, a pretty important quality of a "gulag" is the scale, and another was its domestic focus. Also, the comparison also fails because (I understand) a major goal of the gulag system was the acquisition of slave labor. So on the one hand, you have a massive prison system used for domestic oppression, imprisoning citizens in physically lethal conditions and exploited for slave labor. On the other hand you have a much smaller prison, exclusively housing foreigners, used for no profitable labor of any kind. If you don't pay attention to the details, you can make any comparison you want, but they'll be worthless comparisons.
    - AlecSchueler 4y ago
      Yes, I see what you're saying, but I think it depends which details are being highlighted. In this case the metaphor was based on the commonality of detention without trial. Of course it's not a perfect one for one; they're not literally gulags, but there are elements which are shared and I think those are what the person was trying to highlight.
      - tablespoon 4y ago
        > In this case the metaphor was based on the commonality of detention without trial. Of course it's not a perfect one for one; they're not literally gulags, but there are elements which are shared and I think those are what the person was trying to highlight. The problem is that this particular analogy isn't helpful because it's more misleading than elucidating and there are better analogies that could be made. The only thing going for this analogy was its tendentiousness. Also, IIRC, people who were sent to the gulags did have trials, they were just unfair.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    Murdering one person is murder; murdering a substantial number of people in a region is genocide. Scale can definitely change the fundamental nature of something.
    - avgcorrection 4y ago
      Not really. Genocide is about intent, about who you target. Killing all Sami people in Sweden would be a genocide. Dropping a nuke on Washington D.C. would not be a genocide.
      - hgsgm 4y ago
        Killing nearly all Sami in Sweden is a genocide. Killing one Sami because they are Sami is a hate crime, not a genocide.
        avgcorrection 4y ago
        Yes?
        avgcorrection 4y ago
        Seems that you misread...
- Ozzie_osman 4y ago
  Depending on how you define "detained under post 9/11 foreign policy", it could include people the US imprisoned in countries where there were wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, countries where the US worked with local authoritarian governments to lock up "religious fundamentalists", etc, and my guess is it's a lot higher than 50K. And that doesn't count people killed or otherwise uprooted.
  - coeneedell 4y ago
    I was mainly trying to highlight the difference in scale and focus between these two programs of detaining people. Even if we add another order of magnitude of people for your upper bound it’s still smaller in scale than the gulags, and it’s focused on foreign nationals instead of the government’s own citizens.
    - cies 4y ago
      Small scale gulags. But still gulags.
zokula 4y ago
[dead]
PM_me_your_math 4y ago
You went to the gulag in the Soviet Union for relatively minor offenses, real or imagined. You might be sent there if you annoyed the local party leadership, or maybe broke his daughter's heart. Maybe someone wanted something of yours, so they reported you. You'd be snatched up on the way to the grocery store. Interrogated, made to sign a confession that someone else wrote. Then you were then shipped off, and none of the people you hold dear ever heard from you again. Meanwhile, you went to gitmo if you were an armed combatant in an insurgency, or had a leadership/support role in a terrorist attack against US or her allies. Read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - The Gulag Archipelago for a clear example of a) how Communist/Marxist/Leninist states are irrevocably totalitarian and b) how GITMO is not even remotely comparable to a gulag. The book is a remarkable and often painful read. Not because of how it is written, but because what it is written about - a demonstration of the machinations and inevitable outcome of socialist states.
- InCityDreams 4y ago
  >Meanwhile, you went to gitmo if you were an armed combatant in an insurgency, or had a leadership/support role in a terrorist attack against US or her allies. Wow. And, all that - without a trial.
  - ImHereToVote 4y ago
    Common dude, read Solzhenitsyn. Then you will clearly see that the American word is law. To be accused by America, is the same as being satan incarnate. Do you even Solzhenitsyn bro?
- hgsgm 4y ago
  > Meanwhile, you went to gitmo if you were an armed combatant in an insurgency, or had a leadership/support role in a terrorist attack against US or her allies. That is a lie. Mere suspicion, or a similar name, or being a relative or associate, was sufficient.
- gus_massa 4y ago
  > Meanwhile, you went to gitmo if you were an armed combatant in an insurgency, or had a leadership/support role in a terrorist attack against US or her allies. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detaine... > 779 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo. Although most of these have been released without charge, the United States government continues to classify many of these released detainees as "enemy combatants". As of January 5, 2017, 55 detainees remained at Guantanamo. By January 19, 2017, at the end of the Obama Administration, the detention center remained open with 41 detainees remaining. Assuming all released are innocent and all that remaining are guilty, there is a 95% chance to go to Guantanamo and be innocent. (The number goes up following basic human right like "innocent until proven guilty".)
nradov 4y ago
There have been some military tribunals. But it is essentially impossible to conduct a civilian criminal trial of alleged illegal combatants and terrorists captured under battlefield conditions in a manner consistent with US federal court procedures. The circumstances at the time the prisoners were captured made it impossible to maintain proper chains of evidence and key witnesses are unavailable. And who could even serve as jury members?
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Doesn't matter. What matters is was there any system of justice, even military justice, or were people detained and absurd with reckless disregard for potential innocence. Detaining people as POWs, and treating them well, prevents them from causing harm without oppressing innocents.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Those people were not detained as prisoners of war but as unlawful combatants. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and similar terrorist groups were not signatories to the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War and their fighters did not wear uniforms, therefore they have no legal rights beyond what the US government chooses to grant. (I am not making any argument about the morality of this situation, just explaining the legal reality.)
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and similar terrorist groups were not signatories to the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War and their fighters did not wear uniforms, therefore they have no legal rights beyond what the US government chooses to grant. Incorrect – this issue was specifically litigated; they are entitled under international law, because the war is war where one of the belligerents is not a state, occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions, to the protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which applies to “conflicts not of an international character”. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
    - ImHereToVote 4y ago
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Did they even have a fair trial? Some had some kind of process (fairness is, at best, dubious in most cases), but even some of those who were never charged under any system, and have been cleared for transfer or release, remain detained to this day.

Did they even have a fair trial? I always saw gitmo as a modern US gulag.

by cies 4y ago

Did they even have a fair trial? I always saw gitmo as a modern US gulag.

Not arguing for gitmo’s continued existence, but I would point out that the gulag system was a primary tool of oppression in the Soviet Union, and an estimated 18M soviet citizens were sent there. Over the course of Guantanamo’s existence under 1000 men and boys have been extrajudicially detained and tortured there. Expanding this well known data by an order of magnitude (plus a little) gives a conservative estimate of 50000 individuals extrajudicially detained under post 9/11 foreign policy (just a guess at totals based on roughly how many of these prisons were built in the bush era).

AlecSchueler 4y ago
The amount of people affected doesn't change the abstract nature of the thing, which is what the comparison tests on.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > The amount of people affected doesn't change the abstract nature of the thing, which is what the comparison tests on. Actually it kind of does, a pretty important quality of a "gulag" is the scale, and another was its domestic focus. Also, the comparison also fails because (I understand) a major goal of the gulag system was the acquisition of slave labor. So on the one hand, you have a massive prison system used for domestic oppression, imprisoning citizens in physically lethal conditions and exploited for slave labor. On the other hand you have a much smaller prison, exclusively housing foreigners, used for no profitable labor of any kind. If you don't pay attention to the details, you can make any comparison you want, but they'll be worthless comparisons.
  - AlecSchueler 4y ago
    Yes, I see what you're saying, but I think it depends which details are being highlighted. In this case the metaphor was based on the commonality of detention without trial. Of course it's not a perfect one for one; they're not literally gulags, but there are elements which are shared and I think those are what the person was trying to highlight.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > In this case the metaphor was based on the commonality of detention without trial. Of course it's not a perfect one for one; they're not literally gulags, but there are elements which are shared and I think those are what the person was trying to highlight. The problem is that this particular analogy isn't helpful because it's more misleading than elucidating and there are better analogies that could be made. The only thing going for this analogy was its tendentiousness. Also, IIRC, people who were sent to the gulags did have trials, they were just unfair.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  Murdering one person is murder; murdering a substantial number of people in a region is genocide. Scale can definitely change the fundamental nature of something.
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    Not really. Genocide is about intent, about who you target. Killing all Sami people in Sweden would be a genocide. Dropping a nuke on Washington D.C. would not be a genocide.
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      Killing nearly all Sami in Sweden is a genocide. Killing one Sami because they are Sami is a hate crime, not a genocide.
      - avgcorrection 4y ago
        Yes?
      - avgcorrection 4y ago
        Seems that you misread...
Ozzie_osman 4y ago
Depending on how you define "detained under post 9/11 foreign policy", it could include people the US imprisoned in countries where there were wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, countries where the US worked with local authoritarian governments to lock up "religious fundamentalists", etc, and my guess is it's a lot higher than 50K. And that doesn't count people killed or otherwise uprooted.
- coeneedell 4y ago
  I was mainly trying to highlight the difference in scale and focus between these two programs of detaining people. Even if we add another order of magnitude of people for your upper bound it’s still smaller in scale than the gulags, and it’s focused on foreign nationals instead of the government’s own citizens.
  - cies 4y ago
    Small scale gulags. But still gulags.

zokula 4y ago

[dead]

PM_me_your_math 4y ago

You went to the gulag in the Soviet Union for relatively minor offenses, real or imagined. You might be sent there if you annoyed the local party leadership, or maybe broke his daughter's heart. Maybe someone wanted something of yours, so they reported you. You'd be snatched up on the way to the grocery store. Interrogated, made to sign a confession that someone else wrote. Then you were then shipped off, and none of the people you hold dear ever heard from you again. Meanwhile, you went to gitmo if you were an armed combatant in an insurgency, or had a leadership/support role in a terrorist attack against US or her allies. Read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn - The Gulag Archipelago for a clear example of a) how Communist/Marxist/Leninist states are irrevocably totalitarian and b) how GITMO is not even remotely comparable to a gulag. The book is a remarkable and often painful read. Not because of how it is written, but because what it is written about - a demonstration of the machinations and inevitable outcome of socialist states.

InCityDreams 4y ago
>Meanwhile, you went to gitmo if you were an armed combatant in an insurgency, or had a leadership/support role in a terrorist attack against US or her allies. Wow. And, all that - without a trial.
- ImHereToVote 4y ago
  Common dude, read Solzhenitsyn. Then you will clearly see that the American word is law. To be accused by America, is the same as being satan incarnate. Do you even Solzhenitsyn bro?
hgsgm 4y ago
> Meanwhile, you went to gitmo if you were an armed combatant in an insurgency, or had a leadership/support role in a terrorist attack against US or her allies. That is a lie. Mere suspicion, or a similar name, or being a relative or associate, was sufficient.
gus_massa 4y ago
> Meanwhile, you went to gitmo if you were an armed combatant in an insurgency, or had a leadership/support role in a terrorist attack against US or her allies. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detaine... > 779 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo. Although most of these have been released without charge, the United States government continues to classify many of these released detainees as "enemy combatants". As of January 5, 2017, 55 detainees remained at Guantanamo. By January 19, 2017, at the end of the Obama Administration, the detention center remained open with 41 detainees remaining. Assuming all released are innocent and all that remaining are guilty, there is a 95% chance to go to Guantanamo and be innocent. (The number goes up following basic human right like "innocent until proven guilty".)

nradov 4y ago

There have been some military tribunals. But it is essentially impossible to conduct a civilian criminal trial of alleged illegal combatants and terrorists captured under battlefield conditions in a manner consistent with US federal court procedures. The circumstances at the time the prisoners were captured made it impossible to maintain proper chains of evidence and key witnesses are unavailable. And who could even serve as jury members?

hgsgm 4y ago
Doesn't matter. What matters is was there any system of justice, even military justice, or were people detained and absurd with reckless disregard for potential innocence. Detaining people as POWs, and treating them well, prevents them from causing harm without oppressing innocents.
- nradov 4y ago
  Those people were not detained as prisoners of war but as unlawful combatants. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and similar terrorist groups were not signatories to the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War and their fighters did not wear uniforms, therefore they have no legal rights beyond what the US government chooses to grant. (I am not making any argument about the morality of this situation, just explaining the legal reality.)
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and similar terrorist groups were not signatories to the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War and their fighters did not wear uniforms, therefore they have no legal rights beyond what the US government chooses to grant. Incorrect – this issue was specifically litigated; they are entitled under international law, because the war is war where one of the belligerents is not a state, occurring in the territory of a party to the Conventions, to the protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which applies to “conflicts not of an international character”. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
  - ImHereToVote 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Did they even have a fair trial? Some had some kind of process (fairness is, at best, dubious in most cases), but even some of those who were never charged under any system, and have been cleared for transfer or release, remain detained to this day.