Libs can just point out that there was never that many people held at Gitmo and most of them got released under Obama. If anything the focus on Gitmo seems like a bit of an op to be to distract from all the other torture centers the US was running during the “war on terror”.
I don’t know if that’s true, the whole point of a concentration camp is it’s meant to concentrate a population of people so that they can either be killed off or at least neutralized during a conflict. If the amount of people being detained is less than a handful I don’t think you’re really concentrating anything. I don’t think you could argue a racist guy kidnapping two minorities and locking them in his basement is a concentration camp.
It’s still a torture camp being run by an imperialist super power, but the focus on it specially always felt like it was trying to distract from all the other black sites the US has been running.
It was used to concentrate high status prisoners of a political ideology. It’s still a concentration camp if it’s only 200 people who were all in leadership of a political group.
By your definition it means there were no concentration camps of communists in Indonesia, they were simply torture camps.
Here’s an example of one that held a mere 500 people.
Gitmo had a peak of 680 I think. The fact that it’s 25 today is an admission of guilt by state more than anything else given the history of how, where and why prisoners were moved and who is left.
They’re concentrated in camps. Auschwitz would still be a concentration camp if it had held only a “handful” of Jews because it would still be part of a network of other camps and part of the genocidal project they all served.
: I am now concerned about Guantanamo Bay.
Libs can just point out that there was never that many people held at Gitmo and most of them got released under Obama. If anything the focus on Gitmo seems like a bit of an op to be to distract from all the other torture centers the US was running during the “war on terror”.
I don’t feel like “number of victims” is really an important factor in determining if something is a concentration camp or not
I don’t know if that’s true, the whole point of a concentration camp is it’s meant to concentrate a population of people so that they can either be killed off or at least neutralized during a conflict. If the amount of people being detained is less than a handful I don’t think you’re really concentrating anything. I don’t think you could argue a racist guy kidnapping two minorities and locking them in his basement is a concentration camp.
It’s still a torture camp being run by an imperialist super power, but the focus on it specially always felt like it was trying to distract from all the other black sites the US has been running.
It was used to concentrate high status prisoners of a political ideology. It’s still a concentration camp if it’s only 200 people who were all in leadership of a political group.
By your definition it means there were no concentration camps of communists in Indonesia, they were simply torture camps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantungan_concentration_camp
Here’s an example of one that held a mere 500 people.
Gitmo had a peak of 680 I think. The fact that it’s 25 today is an admission of guilt by state more than anything else given the history of how, where and why prisoners were moved and who is left.
They’re concentrated in camps. Auschwitz would still be a concentration camp if it had held only a “handful” of Jews because it would still be part of a network of other camps and part of the genocidal project they all served.
Reading through bits and pieces of those wiki pages and Jesus fucking Christ
Yeah and this is one of the ones the public knows about, imagine what goes on in the ones we don’t.