Overthrowing oppressive regimes by military force

[abaris]

As I said. You want to compare Gutmo to multiple NAZI camps. But it's a singular camp. That's like comparing if the NAZIs had one camp and the USA had multiple Gutmo's.

A war crime is a war crime, isn't it?

It's at least on the brink of being a war crime. Does that make it similar or comparable to a Nazi concentration camp? No, it doesn't. It doesn't make it similar to the Soviet Gullags either. It has to be judged on it's own.

The problem is the same as with comparing an unlikeable political figure to Hitler. A killer argument, not only wrong, but it also diverts attention from what makes it bad. From what lies at the bottom of the whole issue.

The most striking difference between Gitmo and Nazi concentration camps would be intent. In the case of Gitmo, it's to detain people for an indefinite time. In the case of the concentration camps, the plan was to eliminate undesirable elements from society. Accordingly, every inmate was confronted with the constant threat of imminent death. A guard could kill an inmate without having to face any consequence. On the contrary, the system Theodor Eicke introduced incentivised killing of inmates. Guards got extraordinary leave and monetary rewards on the side. Apart from that, even if it wasn't a death camp, inmates had to do hard labor, and later on got exposed to brutal medical expirement. Look up Sigmund Rascher, who mainly operated at Dachau, which wasn't a death camp.

Gitmo's main issue is to operate outside of the usual checks and balances that are applied to every other prison facility. It's outside every checkable legislation. That's a problem, but it's quite a different problem than with the concentration camps.

[Minimalist]

As I said. You want to compare Gutmo to multiple NAZI camps. But it's a singular camp. That's like comparing if the NAZIs had one camp and the USA had multiple Gutmo's.

A war crime is a war crime, isn't it?

But Gitmo wasn't alone.  There was Abu Ghraib and the secret CIA camps in other countries where extraordinary rendition took place.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/fe...rt-support

Report finds at least 54 countries co-operated with global kidnap, detention and torture operation mounted after 9/11 attacks

[Thumpalumpacus]

As I said. You want to compare Gutmo to multiple NAZI camps. But it's a singular camp. That's like comparing if the NAZIs had one camp and the USA had multiple Gutmo's.

A war crime is a war crime, isn't it?

You drew the comparison, ridiculous in the difference of scale.

I agree that a war crime is a war crime, and I certainly think the invasion of Iraq, as well as the torture of detainees, qualifies. But equating the mass machinery of death with internment camps that killed fewer than ten inmates is slipshod thinking, in the most charitable light.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

As I said. You want to compare Gutmo to multiple NAZI camps. But it's a singular camp. That's like comparing if the NAZIs had one camp and the USA had multiple Gutmo's.

A war crime is a war crime, isn't it?

It's at least on the brink of being a war crime. Does that make it similar or comparable to a Nazi concentration camp? No, it doesn't. It doesn't make it similar to the Soviet Gullags either. It has to be judged on it's own.

The problem is the same as with comparing an unlikeable political figure to Hitler. A killer argument, not only wrong, but it also diverts attention from what makes it bad. From what lies at the bottom of the whole issue.

The most striking difference between Gitmo and Nazi concentration camps would be intent. In the case of Gitmo, it's to detain people for an indefinite time. In the case of the concentration camps, the plan was to eliminate undesirable elements from society. Accordingly, every inmate was confronted with the constant threat of imminent death. A guard could kill an inmate without having to face any consequence. On the contrary, the system Theodor Eicke introduced incentivised killing of inmates. Guards got extraordinary leave and monetary rewards on the side. Apart from that, even if it wasn't a death camp, inmates had to do hard labor, and later on got exposed to brutal medical expirement. Look up Sigmund Rascher, who mainly operated at Dachau, which wasn't a death camp.

Gitmo's main issue is to operate outside of the usual checks and balances that are applied to every other prison facility. It's outside every checkable legislation. That's a problem, but it's quite a different problem than with the concentration camps.

The oldest living guy today was a Nazi concentration camp inmate.  It did him some obvious good.
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news...worlds-old

[abaris]

The oldest living guy today was a Nazi concentration camp inmate.  It did him some obvious good.
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news...worlds-old

I don't find words for how big an idiot you are. And honestly, I don't even want to find any.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's at least on the brink of being a war crime. Does that make it similar or comparable to a Nazi concentration camp? No, it doesn't. It doesn't make it similar to the Soviet Gullags either. It has to be judged on it's own.

The problem is the same as with comparing an unlikeable political figure to Hitler. A killer argument, not only wrong, but it also diverts attention from what makes it bad. From what lies at the bottom of the whole issue.

The most striking difference between Gitmo and Nazi concentration camps would be intent. In the case of Gitmo, it's to detain people for an indefinite time. In the case of the concentration camps, the plan was to eliminate undesirable elements from society. Accordingly, every inmate was confronted with the constant threat of imminent death. A guard could kill an inmate without having to face any consequence. On the contrary, the system Theodor Eicke introduced incentivised killing of inmates. Guards got extraordinary leave and monetary rewards on the side. Apart from that, even if it wasn't a death camp, inmates had to do hard labor, and later on got exposed to brutal medical expirement. Look up Sigmund Rascher, who mainly operated at Dachau, which wasn't a death camp.

Gitmo's main issue is to operate outside of the usual checks and balances that are applied to every other prison facility. It's outside every checkable legislation. That's a problem, but it's quite a different problem than with the concentration camps.

The oldest living guy today was a Nazi concentration camp inmate.  It did him some obvious good.
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news...worlds-old

Post hoc ergo proper hoc is a fallacy. Doubtless you'll accept it here because it fits your silly revisionism.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The oldest living guy today was a Nazi concentration camp inmate.  It did him some obvious good.
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news...worlds-old

I don't find words for how big an idiot you are. And honestly, I don't even want to find any.

The Nazis were stupid.  They should have locked up the internees in the cities so that when the Allies dropped fire bombs they would have been bombing them.  The safest places were in the concentration camps.  They never got attacked.  That's why the oldest guy in the world lived to be so old. Everyone was protecting him.