Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps

[db]

"A Halliburton subsidiary has just received a $385 million contract from the Department of Homeland Security to provide "temporary detention and processing capabilities."

"The contract -- announced Jan. 24 by the engineering and construction firm KBR -- calls for preparing for "an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies, such as "a natural disaster." The release offered no details about where Halliburton was to build these facilities, or when.

...."Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters," says Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers, the U.S. military's account of its activities in Vietnam. "They've already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo."

Link

Lots more good stuff in the article.

 

[CycloWizard]

I think what the world needs is a new Geneva Convention. The power of the US military has bred a different kind of war in which the old rules are not readily applied. We are no longer fighting nations and the lines of conflict have become blurred. It pains me to think anyone is being wrongfully imprisoned in Gitmo, especially if they've been there for 4.5 years since we went into Afghanistan. However, under the current rules of warfare, it seems that this is actually a legitimate play by Bush. Further, it would be political suicide for anyone to let these people go on the off chance that one of them actually carried out an attack against Americans. The way we're going about it now is certainly not the best way, but I'm not sure what the best way is.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I think what the world needs is a new Geneva Convention. The power of the US military has bred a different kind of war in which the old rules are not readily applied. We are no longer fighting nations and the lines of conflict have become blurred. It pains me to think anyone is being wrongfully imprisoned in Gitmo, especially if they've been there for 4.5 years since we went into Afghanistan. However, under the current rules of warfare, it seems that this is actually a legitimate play by Bush. Further, it would be political suicide for anyone to let these people go on the off chance that one of them actually carried out an attack against Americans. The way we're going about it now is certainly not the best way, but I'm not sure what the best way is.

The Geneva Convention and other human rights documents have been made and modified to work in the 21st first century. The United States has basically said that they'll support the documents, but we haven't actually signed them. They've been able to keep this due to the fact that the U.N gets pratically all of it's military power from the United States. With people like John Bolton speaking for the U.S, the U.N isn't going to play hardball with us.

EDIT - Wasn't haliburton contracted to rebuild camp x-ray?

 

[TallBill]

Maybe lock up illegal immigrants from Mexico and "process" them for 36 months feeding them only rice and water before returning them to the southern tip of Mexico.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I think what the world needs is a new Geneva Convention. The power of the US military has bred a different kind of war in which the old rules are not readily applied. We are no longer fighting nations and the lines of conflict have become blurred. It pains me to think anyone is being wrongfully imprisoned in Gitmo, especially if they've been there for 4.5 years since we went into Afghanistan. However, under the current rules of warfare, it seems that this is actually a legitimate play by Bush. Further, it would be political suicide for anyone to let these people go on the off chance that one of them actually carried out an attack against Americans. The way we're going about it now is certainly not the best way, but I'm not sure what the best way is.

The Geneva Convention and other human rights documents have been made and modified to work in the 21st first century. The United States has basically said that they'll support the documents, but we haven't actually signed them. They've been able to keep this due to the fact that the U.N gets pratically all of it's military power from the United States. With people like John Bolton speaking for the U.S, the U.N isn't going to play hardball with us.

EDIT - Wasn't haliburton contracted to rebuild camp x-ray?

The Geneva Convention was designed around nations are war.

There is no nation of Terror and those the lead/encourage do not follow the rules of the Geneva Convention.

They attempt to use such rules/guidelines aginstothers for their own purposes.

 

[magomago]

Eek...not good, especially for me If I stop posting you all know where I am at Gitmo, or its finals week

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I think what the world needs is a new Geneva Convention. The power of the US military has bred a different kind of war in which the old rules are not readily applied. We are no longer fighting nations and the lines of conflict have become blurred. It pains me to think anyone is being wrongfully imprisoned in Gitmo, especially if they've been there for 4.5 years since we went into Afghanistan. However, under the current rules of warfare, it seems that this is actually a legitimate play by Bush. Further, it would be political suicide for anyone to let these people go on the off chance that one of them actually carried out an attack against Americans. The way we're going about it now is certainly not the best way, but I'm not sure what the best way is.

The Geneva Convention and other human rights documents have been made and modified to work in the 21st first century. The United States has basically said that they'll support the documents, but we haven't actually signed them. They've been able to keep this due to the fact that the U.N gets pratically all of it's military power from the United States. With people like John Bolton speaking for the U.S, the U.N isn't going to play hardball with us.

EDIT - Wasn't haliburton contracted to rebuild camp x-ray?

The Geneva Convention was designed around nations are war.

There is no nation of Terror and those the lead/encourage do not follow the rules of the Geneva Convention.

They attempt to use such rules/guidelines aginstothers for their own purposes.

Yes, it was orginally made in the 50's it has been modified I think several times in the 60's and 70's the united states signed anything but the orginal, we've said that we'll support it.

So what if there isn't a nation of terror? They're still people.

 

[Cerb]

Interesting...

 

[Meuge]

There is a thread here at P&N here that's called: "When funerals become political rallies..."

I sure hope the reality isn't going to be the converse of that.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I think what the world needs is a new Geneva Convention. The power of the US military has bred a different kind of war in which the old rules are not readily applied. We are no longer fighting nations and the lines of conflict have become blurred. It pains me to think anyone is being wrongfully imprisoned in Gitmo, especially if they've been there for 4.5 years since we went into Afghanistan. However, under the current rules of warfare, it seems that this is actually a legitimate play by Bush. Further, it would be political suicide for anyone to let these people go on the off chance that one of them actually carried out an attack against Americans. The way we're going about it now is certainly not the best way, but I'm not sure what the best way is.

The Geneva Convention and other human rights documents have been made and modified to work in the 21st first century. The United States has basically said that they'll support the documents, but we haven't actually signed them. They've been able to keep this due to the fact that the U.N gets pratically all of it's military power from the United States. With people like John Bolton speaking for the U.S, the U.N isn't going to play hardball with us.

EDIT - Wasn't haliburton contracted to rebuild camp x-ray?

The Geneva Convention was designed around nations are war.

There is no nation of Terror and those the lead/encourage do not follow the rules of the Geneva Convention.

They attempt to use such rules/guidelines aginstothers for their own purposes.

Yes, it was orginally made in the 50's it has been modified I think several times in the 60's and 70's the united states signed anything but the orginal, we've said that we'll support it.

So what if there isn't a nation of terror? They're still people.

These people are not acting as a nation and do not feel that they should abide by such rules that are laid out for nations to follow.

It is like going into a boxing match with one hand tied behind your back and the ref has been bought.

 

[techs]

The Gulag Americano?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I think what the world needs is a new Geneva Convention. The power of the US military has bred a different kind of war in which the old rules are not readily applied. We are no longer fighting nations and the lines of conflict have become blurred. It pains me to think anyone is being wrongfully imprisoned in Gitmo, especially if they've been there for 4.5 years since we went into Afghanistan. However, under the current rules of warfare, it seems that this is actually a legitimate play by Bush. Further, it would be political suicide for anyone to let these people go on the off chance that one of them actually carried out an attack against Americans. The way we're going about it now is certainly not the best way, but I'm not sure what the best way is.

The Geneva Convention and other human rights documents have been made and modified to work in the 21st first century. The United States has basically said that they'll support the documents, but we haven't actually signed them. They've been able to keep this due to the fact that the U.N gets pratically all of it's military power from the United States. With people like John Bolton speaking for the U.S, the U.N isn't going to play hardball with us.

EDIT - Wasn't haliburton contracted to rebuild camp x-ray?

The Geneva Convention was designed around nations are war.

There is no nation of Terror and those the lead/encourage do not follow the rules of the Geneva Convention.

They attempt to use such rules/guidelines aginstothers for their own purposes.

there is also human rights laws to take into account, which do apply to gitmo and all the other places

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: db
Topic Title: Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps

This is the contract for the round-up of all that do not tow the Republican line.

At this rate it will be less than 100 years to see Germany all over again.

 

[jrenz]

Here is an article which doesn't show any of the flagrant bias displayed in your link:

KBR awarded Homeland Security contract worth up to $385M (HAL) By Katherine Hunt
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- KBR, the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co. (HAL) , said Tuesday it has been awarded a contingency contract from the Department of Homeland Security to supports its Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency. The maximum total value of the contract is $385 million and consists of a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. KBR held the previous ICE contract from 2000 through 2005. The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to expand existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs, KBR said. The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster, the company said.

So they are expanding and supplementing current facilities. Obviously that means they are getting ready to round up Muslims.

So what's it going to be... stricter, more effective border control, along with contingencies for natural disaster victim displacement... or simply yelling "concentration camps" merely for shock value?

Edit: Note that the article states that A) this is simply an extension of a previous contract held by the same company starting in 2000, ending in 2005. B) It is a contingency contract, to be effected in event that it is needed.

For people who shout "propoganda" 15 times a minute, a lot of you are pretty clueless.