the outcome of the election

[Occhidiangela]

Awaiting WHAT trial? They are not even charged with a crime. If anything went the way the Bush Junta wanted it, they wouldn't even be allowed the most rudimentary legal council.

These people are held indefinitely, with no arrest warrant, with no judge checking reasons behind their imprisonment,  on NO legal grounds at all, under inhumane conditions away from ANY control by the US legal system or international organisations. Bah. Awaiting trial. just how blind are you?
The accused there were facing concrete charges, had full access to legal council and were held under conditions that were continously supervised by the international red cross and other organisations. The trial was fair by ANY international standards then and it was held in a timely fashion. Boy, has American justice gone downhill since 1946...

And yes, as concre+e stated, discuss it as you will, Guantanamo Bay, by ANY definition of the term is a concentration camp. The absence of gas chambers doesn't change the fact.

And Ashock: My grandfather (mother's side) was a member of the german socialist party and died in a camp in Alsace in 1942. Go figure. In my case, that makes me extremely sensitive to the little beginnings of similar things today. If you wish to keep your eyes closed - go ahead. But honestly, I'd doubt that your wife would be happy with the report's I've seen from Guantanamo Bay... IF they've even been aired in US television.
[right][snapback]59381[/snapback][/right]

How blind are you, friend Armin? You are applying a simple criminal model to a situation that is not a simple criminal situation. Flawed premise. Islamic chaplains, for example, frequently visited inmates, resulting in at least one case of charges beind filed against the Military Chaplain for aiding and abeting the enemy. (I can't remember if those charges have since been dropped or not, would have to comb through some old news stories from the US media.)

The Gitmo situation still gets attention on US TV, and in print media. It has since shortly after it was chosen as a method. The Civil Liberties folks in the US had, and still have, an objection to the process.

You also forget just who it is that was corraled and sent there. Captured enemy combatants from a war, and their accomplices. A war that is still being fought in Afghanistan -- last I checked, Taliban and Al Qaeda are s till fighting, and certainly operatives have not surrendured, unlike Admiral Doenitz and friends, who signed formal surrender documents in May 1945. This is a kind of war that most people, in and out of the military, still don't understand. It is very much NOT the war of Nuremburg in character, it's something else altogether.

Feel free to try and apply your sensitibilities on how a criminal should be treated. The shoe does not fit. It's a new model, just as political campaigns with the internet as a widespread media are fairly new political contests.

You will note that prisoners of war are not generally given legal counsel, however, with the Commissions pending, they have to be or the Commissions cannot convene.

The assertions of abuse are hyperbole, or just plain false, depends on the case, particularly as reported by the European press, who seem to assume, as you appear to do, that a prison should be run like a social services center. The inmates are lucky they are not in a US prison, where things are considerably rougher . . . much to our society's chagrin.

In any case, those captured will wait, as all POW's do, to see what their fate is. You fail to note that a number of inmates have been released.

When you are on the losing end of a war, it sucks to be you. I'd think a German would understand that. (Yes, cheap shot, but at least partially deserved in this case.)

Occhi