NationStates Jolt Archive


The Concentration Camp of Liberty in America

New British Glory
26-12-2004, 17:26
After World War Two began the widespread trials of Nazis from the highest politicans to the lowest lieutenants. Those being tried from the military were often accused of breaking the Geneva Convention which was quite true. As was shown by the film The Great Escape the Nazis often executed POWs who had surrendered. For this crime, many Nazi officers were put to death - whether or not that is right is another discussion for another time.

But today in America, the rules of the international law are blatantly defied by the monstrosity that is Guantanmo Bay. Here Bush has sunk to new levels of depravitiy and by that measure taken the entire USA with him. He has invented a new status of war criminal to fit his unscrupulous ends. The men in Guantanmo Bay are treated like animals, forced to crawl on all fours like dogs in their orange jumpsuits. They are tortured by sensory deprivation and other more conventional means in order to beat out confessions. In doing this America has pushed itself to the level of the lowest dictatorship. These men are denied a trial, they are even denied lawyers. Instead they suffer voicelessly for crimes that have not even been proven. There is no hope for escape, no hope for an end. The US has denied them not only international law but its own laws for in the Constitution it states that no man may be imprisoned without a trial. The prisoners of Guantanmo have not been proven guilty nor have they been proven innocent but still they suffer. All of this, Bush says, in the name of necessity. As Pitt the Younger once said:
Necessity was the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It was the argument of tyrants: the creed of slaves.
And so the Land of the Free has lost its freedom to the call of necessity. How long will it be for George Bush decides that all those critising his government are aiding and abetting terrorists and therefore should be locked up in the name of necessity? What harm would a trial do? If these men are guilty of terrorism then so be it: then lock them away and throw away the key. And if they are not guilty then surely the FBI could keep track of these men with sure and simple ease. Oh yes that could cost more than to keep them in their cells but when since has human liberty been measured in pounds and pence?

But what of the charges levelled at these prisoners? Terrorism, says the White House but many were probably serving the Taliban. Was the Taliban itself a terrorist organisation? It may have condoned terrorist camps and terrorist action but it was still a foreign government and those who served it believed they were only doing their duty. They are not guilty of terrorism: they are guilty of fighting for the wrong side which is no crime.

Many of the prisoners are not even from Arabic nations. What of those possessing British or French passports? Surely its for Britain to try them under British laws. Despite the 'special' relationship between these two nations, America cannot return the support Britain gave. Britain asks for the return of its citizens to face British justice. It asks that international law and international treaties be honoured by the USA. But each request is met by the same blank stare of the Bush administration. While British soldiers bleed on the deserts of Iraq in an American war, the British government is still denied the most basic of requests. In Britain, the people want their fellow citizens to face their laws and their customs - the laws of liberty and the customs of justice. British citizens are guarnteed a trial under English law - America would have break these promises and render them hollow.

For violating international law, Nazi officers were shot. For violating international law, the Americans are said to be the champions of liberty. Holding POWs without trial is contary to the laws of liberty. America has placed its liberty on the alter of necessity.
Von Witzleben
26-12-2004, 17:28
After World War Two began the widespread trials of Nazis from the highest politicans to the lowest lieutenants. Those being tried from the military were often accused of breaking the Geneva Convention which was quite true. As was shown by the film The Great Escape the Nazis often executed POWs who had surrendered. For this crime, many Nazi officers were put to death - whether or not that is right is another discussion for another time.

But today in America, the rules of the international law are blatantly defied by the monstrosity that is Guantanmo Bay. Here Bush has sunk to new levels of depravitiy and by that measure taken the entire USA with him. He has invented a new status of war criminal to fit his unscrupulous ends. The men in Guantanmo Bay are treated like animals, forced to crawl on all fours like dogs in their orange jumpsuits. They are tortured by sensory deprivation and other more conventional means in order to beat out confessions. In doing this America has pushed itself to the level of the lowest dictatorship. These men are denied a trial, they are even denied lawyers. Instead they suffer voicelessly for crimes that have not even been proven. There is no hope for escape, no hope for an end. The US has denied them not only international law but its own laws for in the Constitution it states that no man may be imprisoned without a trial. The prisoners of Guantanmo have not been proven guilty nor have they been proven innocent but still they suffer. All of this, Bush says, in the name of necessity. As Pitt the Younger once said:
Necessity was the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It was the argument of tyrants: the creed of slaves.
And so the Land of the Free has lost its freedom to the call of necessity. How long will it be for George Bush decides that all those critising his government are aiding and abetting terrorists and therefore should be locked up in the name of necessity? What harm would a trial do? If these men are guilty of terrorism then so be it: then lock them away and throw the key. And if they are not guilty then surely the FBI could keep track of these men with sure and simply ease. Oh yes that could cost more than to keep them in their cells but when since has human liberty been measured in pounds and pence?

But what of the charges levelled at these prisoners? Terrorism, says the White House but many were probably serving the Taliban. Was the Taliban itself a terrorist organisation? It may have condoned terrorist camps and terrorist action but it was still a foreign government and those who served it believed they were only doing their duty. They are not guilty of terrorism: they are guilty of fighting for the wrong side which is no crime.

Many of the prisoners are not even from Arabic nations. What of those possessing British or French passports? Surely its for Britain to try them under British laws. Despite the 'special' relationship between these two nations, America cannot return the support Britain gave. Britain asks for the return of its citizens to face British justice. It asks that international law and international treaties be honoured by the USA. But each request is met by the same blank stare of the Bush administration. While British soldiers bleed on the deserts of Iraq in an American war, the British government is still denied the most basic of requests. In Britain, the people want our citizens to face their laws and their customs - the laws of liberty and the customs of justice. British citizens are guarnteed a trial under English law - America would have them break their word and render it hollow.

For violating international law, Nazi officers were shot. For violating internation law, the Americans are said to be the champions of liberty. Holding POWs without trial is contary to the laws of liberty. America has placed its liberty on the alter of necessity.
But they saved France.
Kanabia
26-12-2004, 17:32
But they saved France.

yes we must nukular bomb france because they are ungrateful frogs and smell bad as well as mastermominding an islamicistic conspiratory :sniper: :mp5:

teh french prisonars should be executorized :sniper:
Via Ferrata
27-12-2004, 04:55
As was shown by the film The Great Escape the Nazis often executed POWs who had surrendered. For this crime, many Nazi officers were put to death - whether or not that is right is another discussion for another time..

Since when are movies like that one historical facts in the US? Guess it is in the same towns in wich they prefer the bible instead of Darwin for explaining evolution.

Just like they forget that more German soldiers were executed after surrender during the battle of the bulge by uS soldiers then vice versa (remember the Malmedy lie in wich (some even still armed) US POWS ran away from the German soldiers that captured them and were shot according the Geneva convention. Some new books with US GI stories and stories of Belgian citizens that saw it or survived the "massacre" are telling the truth now.

The Waffen SS killed a 30 citizens in Stavelot and comited other crimes against Belgian citizens but it did not comit a crime while shooting at running POWs. Some people also forget that the 8th Air Army killed more then 1000 Belgian citizens at ST Vith, a town in wich no German soldier was at that time (and the US intelligence knew about it) , just like it bombed another 3000 citizens in the Ardennes. Only reason was to give the Germans no shelter on retreate in those towns, but those people payed with their blood ...
Von Witzleben
27-12-2004, 04:57
No. Those things are not forgotten. They are simply ignored. Don't forget. We owe them. :rolleyes:
Via Ferrata
27-12-2004, 04:59
Ignored by the ones that close their eyes for their own crimes.
In German they have a word for it "Siegerjustitz". history is full of it.
US hypocrisie
28-12-2004, 02:20
No. Those things are not forgotten. They are simply ignored. Don't forget. We owe them. :rolleyes:

"Why do those dum fucks don't admit the truth like most of there historians do about "Herbstnebel" and the killings on both sides in wich the US excelled by killing about 10 times more POWS then the Waffen SS? "

Perhaps Joe sixpack on NS doesn't admit it because he is less informed then his transatlantic friends. Just like the article in the NY Times said. The Asians and European 9/14 and 16 year old are a few years ahead in maths, history, languages then the US kids. That is so true, even our new "enemy" (republican propaganda) France spends more on education then the US while it has 4,6 times less citizens. Poor US. (Thank you George).
Andaluciae
28-12-2004, 02:27
These fellows aren't technically POW's though. As they were fighting out of uniform, for a non-national organization. So, international law can be interpereted as not applying to them. On the other hand I do believe they should be tried in the US civil court system as terrorists, or something along those lines.
Macrosolid
28-12-2004, 02:30
You illustrate your point perfectly, by the way, US hypocrisie.

After World War Two began the widespread trials of Nazis from the highest politicans to the lowest lieutenants. Those being tried from the military were often accused of breaking the Geneva Convention which was quite true. As was shown by the film The Great Escape the Nazis often executed POWs who had surrendered. For this crime, many Nazi officers were put to death - whether or not that is right is another discussion for another time.

I'll repeat what I said in the thread you are just copying:

Oddly enough, many officers of the Allied Forces (ie the Winning Team) who commited many of the same atrocities (Dresden anyone?) were not put on trial at Nuremburg.

Same with WW1. Many of the things Germany were accused of, The Allies had done either the same thing or seomething similar. Yet, none of those countries were made to pay.

Stalin, Zhukov, Mao, even Roosevelt. They all comitted atrocites but none were put on trial, because their side won the war.

Granted, their respective militaries may have punished the offenders(rare if ever), but there was no historic international trial.

An honest apparaisal of Nuremburg would simply cement in your mind one simple fact: The only crime in war is losing.
Von Witzleben
28-12-2004, 02:33
An honest apparaisal of Nuremburg would simply cement in your mind one simple fact: The only crime in war is losing.
Well put.
New British Glory
28-12-2004, 02:46
The Otherthread Is Mine Also Please See The Similarity Of The Naems, Just A Mix Up With The Log Ins
Pan-Arab Israel
28-12-2004, 04:04
Perhaps Joe sixpack on NS doesn't admit it because he is less informed then his transatlantic friends.

LOL, coming from someone who can't even spell. In any case, that was the dumbest generalization. Ever. Get a clue.
Via Ferrata
29-12-2004, 03:57
LOL, coming from someone who can't even spell. In any case, that was the dumbest generalization. Ever. Get a clue.

Get a life! you are so dum that you can't continue the discussion in another tongue. Wow, your so great while attacking a non english speaker that speaks five languages (like I saw here)

Yeah, you are good in your second language, redneck, but that one does not count in the world.