No. It's not. In some instances people were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or treated poorly based on pretty minor actions, but even at it's height Guantanamo housed < 1000 people. If we were sweeping up any an all Islamists I'd expect a good deal more than that.
Also, the U.S. didn't 'get away with' Guantanamo. It was a big news cycle and the prison is nearly shut down now, and operates with much more consideration for the prisoners, giving them access to counsel and repatriating then when able.
Name a government that hasn't abused it's power at one point. Not sure what your definition of normal is in this instance.
> Who ended up in prison for it?
I'd be ok if China simply stopped what they are doing without sending anyone to prison.
To answer your question though, no one. It's hard to prosecute individuals for an organization's failings without dismantling the organization, which is the US military in this case. The best we can hope for is fixes to prevent such abuses inches future, which we got.
Many Americans, myself included, wish some people were put away, and also sincerely hope that the perpetrators of abuses in Xinjiang find similar ends.
I'd be okay if the US simply stopped invading some countries or toppling random governments every 5 years.
Many people of the rest of the world wish for the responsible US politicians to be put away. I hope the American perpetrators find similar ends.
Its an awful kind of mockery to see the US displaying themselves as the hand of justice in the Xinjiang situation. I wish countries like the Netherlands or Switzerland would do it instead, their hands are much, much cleaner.
This is the same kind of mockery as having Saudi Arabia on the UN panel for womens rights.
> I'd be okay if the US simply stopped invading some countries or toppling random governments every 5 years.
Me too, not sure what that has to do with anything.
> Many people of the rest of the world wish for the responsible US politicians to be put away. I hope the American perpetrators find similar ends.
ok? Not sure where that fits in though.
> Its an awful kind of mockery to see the US displaying themselves as the hand of justice in the Xinjiang situation. I wish countries like the Netherlands or Switzerland would do it instead, their hands are much, much cleaner.
If you consider doing nothing at all about bad things happening clean, then sure. Also, your diction leads me to believe you are Chinese yourself, so maybe a little bias?
> This is the same kind of mockery as having Saudi Arabia on the UN panel for womens rights.
The US doesn't have over a million people in a concentration camp right now, so I don't see the similarity.
Its also racist to make people held accountable for their ancestors. This is what the Nazis did to the Jews, and the US teached germany the hard way that it is not right. How comes you didn't learn that lesson?
Germany got the Nürnberger Trials, the US (clarification: politicians) was never held accountable for anything.
Other than that the US kidnaps people from various countries, often without approval of the country where the kidnapping happens, brings the rebel (patriot?) to Guantanamo Bay without even trial by US legal system and waterboards and tortures them and holds them indefinitely - although some are realized to be the wrong identity and let go - there is another point...
...Cuba has denounced the US military occupation of Guantanamo Bay for decades, and requested the US to leave. So this is happening against the wishes of the country it is happening in.
> ...Cuba has denounced the US military occupation of Guantanamo Bay for decades, and requested the US to leave. So this is happening against the wishes of the country it is happening in.
It's not a military occupation in the sense you imply. It is a perpetual lease made between the US and Cuba. [1]
See, it's not an occupation, it's a "perpetual lease". That I happen to enforce with my army. And we didn't steal that land, they kindly gave it to us. When we held a gun up to their heads and made them sign a document they did not understand. Oh, and these aren't slaves, they're workers. Who happen to be on an unbreakable contract.
(and also, how could I forget, "these Uighurs aren't prisoners, they're just people who, realizing their mistakes, kindly happened to voluntarily come here for education")
The point is that some party insisting that they have some legal contract giving them permission to do something does not mean that contract is legitimate or voluntary.
The remainder of the comment illustrates some very obvious examples of this from the past.
> U.S. control of Guantánamo Bay came about through the end of the Spanish-American war and the Platt Amendment. This amendment was initiated in 1903 and outlined seven conditions for the U.S. withdrawal from Cuba. The United States intervened at the end of the Spanish-American War, taking credit for Cuban independence from Spain. The Platt Amendment was an amendment to the Cuban constitution that supposedly gave Cuba sovereignty, however it included conditions that allowed for U.S. intervention and the ability for the United States to lease or buy lands in order to establish naval bases. The U.S. was allowed to create up to four naval bases on the island of Cuba, but only ever built one, at Guantánamo Bay. The Platt Amendment was repealed in 1934, which is why the Cuban government considers the U.S. occupation of Guantánamo Bay illegal.
"conditions for the U.S. withdrawal from Cuba" = military force. "perpetual lease" my ass.
There was another lease, which was perpetual, signed with Cuba after that. See the link I posted. [1]
"A 1934 treaty reaffirming the lease granted Cuba and her trading partners free access through the Bay, modified the lease payment from $2,000 in gold coins per year to the 1934 equivalent value of $4,085 U.S. dollars, and added a requirement that termination of the lease requires the consent of both the U.S. and Cuban governments, or the U.S. abandonment of the base property."
> Can you point to some less biased source than the US military?
Yes. I called the 1934 document a lease, but it was actually a treaty that also included a modified form of the earlier lease's provisions.
In 1934, a new Cuban-American Treaty of Relations,
reaffirming the lease, granted Cuba and its trading
partners free access through the bay, modified the lease
payment from $2,000 in U.S. gold coins per year to the
1934 equivalent value of $4,085 in U.S. dollars,
and made the lease permanent unless both governments
agreed to break it, or until the U.S. abandoned the base
property. [1]
United States - Cuban Agreements and Treaty of 1934 [2]
Cuban–American Treaty of Relations (1934)
Yale Law School, Lillian Goldman Law Library [3]
Cuban–American Treaty of Relations (1934) [4]
> That's not the same as putting people into prison because their religious beliefs make them enemies of the state.
Isn't this what some people ended up in Guantanamo Bay for?
Edit: TIL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_at_Guantanamo...