A Concentration Camp by Any Other

Name…

A Concentration Camp by Any Other Name….

For several years the United States has operated a “detention center” (or “detention camp&rdquo in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It still holds fifty-some “detainees” captured during the U.S.’s invasion of Afghanistan after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.in 2001. They are not technically “Prisoners of War” because the center is not operated under the rules of war (Geneva Convention). It is called a detention center or camp and the men being held there indefinitely without trials are simply “detainees.”

When I was a kid I thought a “concentration camp” was where people were sent to concentrate on their crimes. Later I thought only Germany set up concentration camps and they were all extermination centers for the holocaust. Later still I read more about the history of concentration camps and learned that their modern history dates back to the Boer War in South Africa when the English rounded up and detained Boers indefinitely in enclosed camps “for their own protection.” Dachau, the first German concentration camp (which I have visited), was established to detain political prisoners, enemies of the Nazi Party, again, “for their own protection.”

Surprisingly, Dachau was not established as an extermination camp and wasn’t used that way until it became a slaughterhouse of mainly Russian officers during World War 2. A gas chamber was added, but it was never used.

My point is that, contrary to popular belief, “concentration camp” does not necessarily mean “extermination camp” and “concentration camp” is not unique to the Nazis.

My question is whether the “detention center” at Guantanamo Bay would still be open if it were called what it is—a concentration camp. I doubt it.

So, I know some people will object and say “But it houses only terrorists!” How do we know that? Some will say “Our government says so.” But why trust our government? It also said Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and used that as justification for our invasion of Iraq. Later it was revealed that American intelligence officers informed the Bush administration there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—before the invasion.

What makes America America and great is that we don’t trust our government. That’s why we have three branches of government—checks and balances—because we know power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. America is not its government and the government is not America. “America” is a state of mind, a set of ideals, that includes not trusting power.

Again—how does anyone know for sure that the men being held indefinitely without trials in Cuba (by the American government) are guilty of anything? Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty?” Oh, some will say, that only applies to U.S. citizens. Really? Since when? Are you saying that only American citizens have human rights? Is it not a human right not to be held without bail or trial indefinitely by force? Isn’t that why we had a revolution in 1776—because we believed there are universal human rights not granted by government but by “nature’s God?” Have we now decided those rights apply only to us? Isn’t that the same as saying we, Americans, are the only true humans? The reasoning is patently absurd. (I am, of course, talking about “American exceptionalism” taken to the extreme to which some now take it.)

So what’s preventing the Obama administration from keeping its promise to close Guantanamo Bay’s detention center? I recently read an article saying it is due to roadblocks to closing it, and even to giving the detainees trials, set up by Congress. Who knows? Whatever the reason, it’s wrong. The men who have been held there now for over a decade are human beings, not aliens or animals. They have rights. A basic human right is not to be held indefinitely by force without justification and, so far as we know, there is no justification for it. If there is, why not prove it? Surely now, after more than a decade, it can’t be “for security reasons.” And the appeal to “national security” was never sufficient reason to do what is morally wrong (viz., violate human rights).

In my opinion, this is an example of where the U.S.’s mass media has bowed to the government inappropriately. They should be calling the “detention center” at Guantanamo Bay what it is—a concentration camp. Our national mass media tend to use whatever language the government uses for things. That’s bowing to and participating in propaganda.

Guantanamo Likened to Nazi Concentration Camp

The Australian lawyer for Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks has described the now notorious U.S. prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay as being "like a Nazi death camp" following a recent visit. David McLeod, the Australian lawyer for Australia's only remaining national incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay said he was concerned for the Adelaide-born Muslim convert's mental state and would relay his concerns to U.S. authorities.

"He continues to be locked up for 22 hours per day," said McLeod, adding his client had only seen the sun three times since the beginning of last December. McLeod said Hicks is "chained to the floor" in his cell and his physical and mental condition had deteriorated markedly since his last visit.

Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has said he will request an urgent assessment of Hicks's health from U.S. authorities but Hicks's father Terry Hicks has called for an independent assessment to be made of his son despite Hicks's recent refusal to see an Australian psychiatrist.

The U.S. military though has denied that Hicks's health is deteriorating. Colonel Moe Davis, United States chief military prosecutor, said he had checked with prison officials who had said Hicks's health was "fine." Colonel Davis also denied Mr McLeod's assessment of prison conditions as similar to a Nazi death camp and criticized Australian media inaccuracies of the Hicks case.

Colonel Davis also said the revised charges against Hicks are in the final stages of preparation and the prisoner is likely to be charged this week.

Meanwhile a letter drafted by Australian Democrat Leader Lyn Allison will be sent to Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi asking for a Congressional resolution ordering that Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks be either bought before justice in a U.S. civilian court or else repatriated.

The letter will put added pressure on the Howard government already accused of abandoning Hicks by his U.S. military-appointed lawyer Major Michael Mori. Hick's lawyer has repeatedly said he did not believe the system set up by the Bush administration would allow Hicks a fair trial, a view shared by the U.S. Supreme Court when it rejected the original military commissions.

He has pointed to the fact that neither the U.K. nor the U.S. itself will allow its subjects to be tried under such circumstances and said the expected amended charges to be brought against Hicks of "material support" to a terrorist organization were "bogus" and did not constitute a war crime. Mori has repeatedly called on the Australian Government to repatriate Hicks.

However, under Australian law, it is unclear whether Hicks could be tried for any offense, which accounts for Howard's reluctance to demand Hicks's repatriation. Al-Qaeda, the terrorist group to which Hicks is alleged to have been a member, was not listed as a proscribed organization in Australia at the time of his arrest.

However, with a federal election looming and the latest Newspoll opinion poll showing 56 percent of people disapproving of the way the Federal Government has handled the David Hicks affair, Prime Minister Howard knows he must find a way to neutralize the issue.

Noticeably strengthening his rhetoric, Howard and his Attorney General Philip Ruddock have begun putting pressure on the United States, strongly requesting that Hicks be brought to trial.

Speaking on Sydney radio this week, Howard even hinted at the previously unthinkable notion of Hicks's repatriation.

"I do not accept that he can be held indefinitely without trial, whatever view I may have about the alleged offenses with which he is charged," he said.

Hicks's family and legal team have urged the Federal Government to bring Hicks home quickly, alleging five years of brutal treatment at Guantanamo Bay has damaged him mentally.

Gitmo is a good solution for these wahabs.