www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Bush uses Gulags?!?!!?!?!?!?!!

It has been well known that under the current administration, individuals considered to be a potential threat (a vague term) to the United States have "disappeared" without any warning, and their families do not know what has happened to them and fear the worst.

There of course is no way for us to know if they were a threat or not; we have to just take the word of our government (which is not one known for being truthful). It will not even confirm those whom it has taken. We can not know how they are being treated. We are told nothing about them, they just disappear.

Now it is being said that we are taking "prisoners" to the Gulags in Eastern Europe: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/02/terror.suspects/index.html (While the term Gulag was not used in the article, anyone familiar with the Soviets know this is exactly what is being used). Of course we are being told they are treated properly -- but how would we know?

Seems like the things we used to condemn about the USSR, now that the USSR is gone, we are going about and doing ourselves. What a shame.

Henry,

Did you actually expect that the government would not add something like this to the long list of crimes against humanity?

Dear Henry Karlson, I couldn't agree with you more on your post! I've been thinking the very same thing for at least two years now. Having been in the Marine Corps from 1982-1991, it does sound like our own country is taking history lessons from the Gestapo and the Soviet Union. Don't get me wrong-I love this country and would give my life if I have to, but I don't like what is going on at this time.

America used to stand for something in the world; liberty, self determination, independence, the rule of law, presumed innocence, and human rights.

That has been undone.

I hope the sacrifice of our moral reputation has been worth what has been gained, in eliminating these terrorists.

Nick

Even American citizens have been held indefinitely without legal charges being filed.
And they say it is because our freedom is being threatened?
It is really breathtaking, this hubris.
-Daniel

I think it is not Pres. Bush or, for that matter, any of the past Presidents of the US, who "does" or "did" these things, although the complicity of a sitting President, being the CIC, can be argued under the principle of "respondeat superior."

This has been going on for so many years and has been, and continues to be, justified by the euphemistic "national security" consideration.

You know which Agency is responsible but it carries the necessary MO.

Amado

Well, when we all become Moslems we will have gulags, beheadings, stoning of women, etc. no one will criticize us either. It won't be long.

Well known? Only by those who hate the president with such a passion that they are willing to believe anything. There is no evidence to support the notion that people who are considered to be a threat to the United States are �disappearing�. If there were such evidence you can bet that it would be the lead story in the anti-Bush mainstream media 24/7.

Regarding the possibility of interrogation camps in Eastern Europe and other places, I do hope we have them. We are at war and proper interrogation of enemy combatants is vital to winning the war that the Islamic extremists have declared upon us. The people being interrogated (wherever they are being interrogated) are those who would intentionally attack women and children because it leads people to be afraid of them. I don�t condone torture but I also don�t consider methods like sleep deprivation or loud music to be torture.

This is a rather nonsensical statement. America has freed almost 100 million people with the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq. Both countries now have democratic constitutions and are engaged in the very messy business of becoming real democracies. The people there are now independent. They now live under the rule of law (instead of the rule of tyrants). They are presumed innocent of crimes instead of being hauled away and executed for the crime of speaking against the tyrannical regime. They have basic human rights guaranteed by their respective constitutions. And as Iraqis exercised self-determination in voting for a constitution last month, in December they will elect people to represent them in their new government. Sure it�s messy. But they are moving forward despite the media�s attempt to convince us that they are not.

The only American citizens that are being held long term are those who have been demonstrated to plot or act against us on behalf of the enemy in a time of war. There is nothing new in this and is proper to hold non-uniformed enemy combatants until the conclusion of the war. FDR�s administration acted in a similar way during WWII.

I applaud the Bush administration for acting not only to protect America against her enemies but to make war against those who would kill us. Too bad that Bush cannot run for a third term. I hope that Cheney changes his mind and runs in 2008.

First they came for the Muslims, and many applauded: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

Sorry, John V...

I agree with your post on many counts, but sleep deprivation and loud music most certainly do count as torture. After a few days without sleep, people begin to hallucinate. After a few minutes with loud country music, my ears bleed. Torture.

Gaudior, who fails see the reason (if true) for prisioners to be denied correspondence with family members, just like we did with POWs.

To answer your more serious question first, Gaudior, one reason might be that, if the prisoner really is involved with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, the family members are probably involved at some level as well, and they might try sending messages/instructions disguised as "family letters".

As for your problems with loud country music, remind me to send you a copy of The Best of Johnny Cash for Christmas this year!

President Karzai of Afghanistan has effective control over Kabul, only because of the American military presence. Without it, his regime wouldn't last a day! And even the capital would fall to the poppy growing warlords that command the other 98% of the territory. Rule of law, freedom, I don't think so.

The Iraqi regime has no credibility and no natural constituacy among any major or minor group within the country. We are witnessing the slow disintegration and fragmentation of what was Iraq. It too is being carved up and served to power brokers and interest groups, none of them friends of ours. I won't even mention the estimates of civilian casualties in Iraq since the American invasion. Ill considered, poorly planned, and largely counter productive to American interests in the region.

The idea that we have brought 'freedom' to these people is laughable, and naive. Blue thumbs don't make them free, having voted for a 'constitution' that will last as long as the first "coup" after the American Army comes home.

It will happen, some day.

Nick

Well, Saddam is still alive. We could just put him back in charge. That would make everyone happy, right? :rolleyes:

His rule was brutal, and he abused his people. But no worse than a score of other strongarm rulers around the world, shall I name them? Some of them "friends" of America.

Al Quida, and radical islamic terrorism had no foothold in Iraq during his regime.

U.S. foreign policy should be about American interests in the world. American interests have been dis-served, by this mis-adventure.

No denying that previous U.S. governments have allowed or even put in place some dubious leaders in other countries. So does that mean, once we put them in, we have to leave them there forever?

Quote

Al Quida, and radical islamic terrorism had no foothold in Iraq during his regime.

Wasn't Saddam Hussein a terrorist? Or was he just a brutal genocidal dictator? I forget.

Quote

U.S. foreign policy should be about American interests in the world. American interests have been dis-served, by this mis-adventure.

So you're saying we should never try to help anyone else in the world who's suffering, unless their suffering directly affects our own personal interests?