- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
By all criteria, this a concentration camp. Not “concentration camp” as rhetorical inflation, or emotionally manipulative shorthand, or edgy metaphor—but as in: literally.
As in: detention without trial, state control, inhumane living conditions, forced labor, dehumanization, brutal violence, isolation from accountability, psychological torture, and—by every available logical extension—murder.
That last one we can’t yet verify in the strict evidentiary sense, but the circumstances suggest it like smoke suggests fire, and they are already trying to hide their actions and deny what is occurring.
I’m sure the Nazis had torture/interrogation sites too.
Nobody said that not being a concentration camp made Guantanamo ok.
No, someone just said it’s not a concentration camp because everyone of one demographic wasn’t there.
Actually, on further thought, I’ll give you that. But, unsurprisingly, limited rights abuses tend to lead to more extensive rights abuses, and the only really surprising thing is that it took more than 20 years to go from torture camps to concentration camps. Waiting for those ghettos, Poland style.
You misinterpreted my response. The point is the intention (giving 1 example at the time of operation). That intention was interrogation not concentrating undesirables.
I’m pretty sure the vast majority of criminals imprisoned in America have been interrogated without having to be removed to a different country and kept in a special prison. I imagine the exceptions are military personnel stationed outside America, criminals serving sentences in other countries, and the people at Guantanamo bay? So why are they being treated differently?
I guess it’s semantics. If you want to call black sites concentration camps that’s fine by me, there’s a lot of overlap, I acknowledge that.