Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Guantanamo Hunger Strike

Guantanamo Hunger Strike Terrorism 2013 Obama Administration Forced Feeding

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 27 April 2013 - 01:58 PM

No one has posted anything on this, so I thought I would.  The issue of forced feeding is of particular interest to me.  I remember seeing a movie about early suffragettes and those who were imprisoned were forced fed.  The descriptions were horrific then, and I can imagine no better now.  I can understand that a hunger strike is the one form of control a prisoner can exert, and I actually think that anyone who chooses it, should ber allowed to do so, no matter how it turns out.  I think forced feeding is inhumane and in its own way torture.  

http://www.historyle...uffragettes.htm

Quote

Constance Lytton remembered that:

“Two of the women (wardresses) took hold of my arms, one held my head and one my feet. One wardress helped to pour the food. The doctor leant on my knees as he stooped over my chest to get at my mouth. I shut my mouth and clenched my teeth. The sense of being overpowered by more force that I could possibly resist was complete, but I resisted nothing except with my mouth. The doctor offered me the choice of a wooden or steel gag; he explained that the steel gag would hurt and the wooden one would not, and he urged me not to force him to use the steel one. But I did not speak nor open my mouth, so after playing about for a moment or two with the wooden one he finally had recourse to the steel.

The pain of it was intense; he got the gag between my teeth, when he proceeded to turn it much more than necessary until my jaws were fastened wide apart, far more than they could go naturally. Then he put down my throat a tube, which seemed to me much too wide and was something like four feet long. The irritation of the tube was excessive. I choked the moment I touched my throat until it had gone down. Then the food was poured in quickly; it made me sick a few seconds after it was down and the action of the sickness made my body and legs double up, but the wardresses instantly pressed back my head and the doctor leant on my knees. The horror of it was more than I can describe.

And, the prisoners at Guantanamo can strike in my opinion.  Many of them are being held even though the government has no interest in them any longer.  
Some have been cleared, but because we don't know what to do with them, they remain in prisoner indefinitely.  IMO those that have been cleared should be released, but in the alternative at least allowed to strike to bring attention to the situation at Guantanamo.

I'm not talking about the ones that are indeed terrorists or terror suspects.  I don't like it, but I understand the national security implications of their detention. But, the men who have been cleared?  What does it say of a country and its much lauded liberty,  if that same country falsely keeps imprisoned innocent detainees?  Or at least detainees that pose no national security threat.  By keeping them in prison, we actually turn them into threats and for good reason.  Charges of tyranny can be leveled appropriately against any nation who imprisons people who pose no threat and have committed no crime.


http://www.huffingto..._n_3169596.html

Quote

WASHINGTON -- The number of hunger strikers being tracked by the United States military at its Guantanamo Bay prison hit 100 on Saturday, two weeks after a raid forced detainees living in a communal facility into individual cells.
Twenty of the detainees are being force-fed and five of them are in the hospital, Lt. Col. Sam House said in an email from Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, where the detainees are being held. None of them are in life-threatening condition, he said.
The military had tracked only 43 detainees as hunger strikers before the April 13 raid of Camp Six, a communal facility. House told The Huffington Post on Friday that all of the detainees who were added to the list were hunger striking before the raid "but could not be observed or placed under medical care because they had covered or broken the cameras" in their cells.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#2 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 9,214 posts

Posted 28 April 2013 - 08:51 PM

^ I saw that movie about suffragettes too.

Hunger strikes is one of the very few ways powerless people can protest and potentially draw attention to their situation which may allow them to air their grievances. Whether they deserved the powerless position they are in is another matter. Yes, it looks bad on the authorities whether they 'interfere' with a hunger strike or not - if anyone is paying attention. Some protesters may not have a leg to stand on and may be making the authorities look bad undeservably but people can't examine that situation and decide such if no attention is brought to the protestors situation.

I haven't read bout Guantanamo in a while, but last I heard there were a few of the people who have been cleared of wrong doing, but haven't been released because basically the government didn't know what to do with them now. If true that is pathetic and worse. Even if they haven't been cleared, having been held for over a decade without any semblance of due process is hardly better.

Edited by sierraleone, 29 April 2013 - 05:49 AM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#3 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 28 April 2013 - 09:54 PM

If they want to go on a hunger strike...more power to them. Let them. One of two things will happen. Either their hunger will force them to eat, or they will die from starvation...either way, problem solved.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#4 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 12:40 PM

Quote

If they want to go on a hunger strike...more power to them. Let them. One of two things will happen. Either their hunger will force them to eat, or they will die from starvation...either way, problem solved.
I am also not seeing the problem. Why any effort would be made to make jihadist psychopaths eat their dinner is beyond me. Especially if doing so is going to be called "torture" by their advocates.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#5 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:04 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 28 April 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

If they want to go on a hunger strike...more power to them. Let them. One of two things will happen. Either their hunger will force them to eat, or they will die from starvation...either way, problem solved.

View Postscherzo, on 29 April 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

Quote

If they want to go on a hunger strike...more power to them. Let them. One of two things will happen. Either their hunger will force them to eat, or they will die from starvation...either way, problem solved.
I am also not seeing the problem. Why any effort would be made to make jihadist psychopaths eat their dinner is beyond me. Especially if doing so is going to be called "torture" by their advocates.

I agree.  If people want to go on a hunger strike they should be allowed to do so.  I don't disagree with that notion.  

But, forced feeding is torture, and whether you believe in torture or not as a method for extracting information and intelligence, torture for the sake of torture, or forced feeding for the sake of keeping someone fed because to let them strike would "look bad" is immoral.

Let them strike if they want to.  No one is forcing them NOT to eat.  It's their choice.  We may all agree on this for different reasons, but take the win, we all found something we can agree on.  Let them strike.  Force feeding them isn't going to get any intelligence for us.  After a decade of incarceration, they have no more intelligence to offer, except maybe where the inmates hide the soap at Gitmo.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#6 cl05

cl05
  • Islander
  • 209 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:13 PM

Let them starve if they want to. Good riddance.



#7 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:28 PM

Quote

Since it was opened on January 11th 2002, 779 prisoners are acknowledged to have been held at Guantánamo Bay.  Yet in 2006, after many innocents had already been released,

analysis of Pentagon data on 517 prisoners by Seton Hall University

found 55% were determined not to have committed any hostile acts against the US or its allies, and only 8% were alleged to have had any kind of affiliation with al-Qaeda.



How Did So Many Innocents End Up At Guantanamo?

Metrics

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#8 Dev F

Dev F

    Straighten your pope hat!

  • Islander
  • 3,757 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 02:41 PM

What Scott said. It amazes me that many of the same people who think the United States government can't be trusted to invest in alternative energy or manage health care exchanges will take it on absolute faith that everyone whom the government is holding in Guantanamo deserves to be in Guantanamo.

#9 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 03:49 PM

Quote

What Scott said. It amazes me that many of the same people who think the United States government can't be trusted to invest in alternative energy or manage health care exchanges will take it on absolute faith that everyone whom the government is holding in Guantanamo deserves to be in Guantanamo.
I'm wondering what kind of "faith" it would require to trust government to release people captured while fighting for the Taliban.

National Review took the time to compile a list former Gitmo detainees who got right back on the terror saddle after being let go:
http://www.nationalr...aniel-botwinick  Actions speak louder than liberal bullsh*t

I think it's prudent to air on the side of caution ...or common sense as it used to be called.
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#10 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,027 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 07:29 PM

View Postscherzo, on 29 April 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

I think it's prudent to air on the side of caution ...or common sense as it used to be called.

I've never trusted common sense, and I never will. I can never forgive it for the death of reason.

What you call "caution" is arguing that it's better for dozens of people to be punished indefinitely without a trial, than it is for one person to be released who might ever potentially commit a crime in the future. What a fundamentally unAmerican idea.

#11 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 08:28 PM

I'm sorry but the idea of people being held for all these years AFTER they've been shown to have had no involvement in terrorist activities is appalling and this notion that allowing them to starve is just a peachy problem solver disgusts me. If they've been cleared, they should be released, not allowed to starve to death because they've given up hope of ever being released. People in this country need to decide if they believe in justice and fairness or if that's just pretty words we spout to make ourselves feel superior to others. If American values exist than we ought to do the right thing here or stop whining about how other countries don't.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#12 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 09:27 PM

View PostOmega, on 29 April 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:


What you call "caution" is arguing that it's better for dozens of people to be punished indefinitely without a trial, than it is for one person to be released who might ever potentially commit a crime in the future. What a fundamentally unAmerican idea.

It is a categorically unAmerican idea.  It is the very foundation of American law that the STATE is responsible for proving guilt.  It is not the responsibility of those accused to prove their innocence.  If guilt could not be ascertained after a decade, then I think we should come up with a better way to do this.

The very idea that anyone thinks these detainees would be released and not "watched" for the rest of their lives is sheer folly.  One day, this will be seen as the same black mark as Japanese internment during WWII.  While the hysteria do the day prevailed, as it does now, in the end it and this is a blight on the American ideals of Liberty and Justice.

The very idea that detainees are also being forced fed is tragic.

Lin, my statement about striking wasn't about letting them die, it was about them striking and being forced fed in the process.  I believe anyone has the right to strike or boycott by not eating.  Anyone.  If that is what it takes to shine a light on a problem, and those who do it are doing it for cause, then they should be left alone and not forced fed.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#13 scherzo

scherzo

    I know things

  • Islander
  • 3,388 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 09:37 PM

Quote

I've never trusted common sense, and I never will.
No comment

Just thought that needed quotin'...lest anyone I tell about this post not believe me. :smile2:

Edited by scherzo, 29 April 2013 - 09:38 PM.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."    -Ronald Reagan, October 27 1964
Posted Image

#14 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:43 PM

View PostCait, on 29 April 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:


It is a categorically unAmerican idea.  It is the very foundation of American law that the STATE is responsible for proving guilt.  It is not the responsibility of those accused to prove their innocence.  If guilt could not be ascertained after a decade, then I think we should come up with a better way to do this.

The very idea that anyone thinks these detainees would be released and not "watched" for the rest of their lives is sheer folly.  One day, this will be seen as the same black mark as Japanese internment during WWII.  While the hysteria do the day prevailed, as it does now, in the end it and this is a blight on the American ideals of Liberty and Justice.


You're talking about two different systems. Our civilian court system, and a military court system...the two are not the same.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#15 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:42 AM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 29 April 2013 - 10:43 PM, said:

View PostCait, on 29 April 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

It is a categorically unAmerican idea.  It is the very foundation of American law that the STATE is responsible for proving guilt.  It is not the responsibility of those accused to prove their innocence.  If guilt could not be ascertained after a decade, then I think we should come up with a better way to do this.

The very idea that anyone thinks these detainees would be released and not "watched" for the rest of their lives is sheer folly.  One day, this will be seen as the same black mark as Japanese internment during WWII.  While the hysteria do the day prevailed, as it does now, in the end it and this is a blight on the American ideals of Liberty and Justice.


You're talking about two different systems. Our civilian court system, and a military court system...the two are not the same.

I think that's a deflection.  We treat them as enemy combatants because congress passed a law allowing us to do that.  That is not military law, it is Legislative law.  That is in fact codified law, not the common law our judicial system stems from.  It's an important distinction.  One that all Americans who value liberty should be aware of.  Congress can pass any law it likes, but that won't make them all fair, just or right.

But, in any event, as an American, I object to my government holding captive anyone who cannot be charged and tried [by whatever authority civil or military] within at least, oh say, ten freaking years.  As an American who values Liberty, I object to my government acting as some authoritative dictatorship by holding anyone hostage without some sort of process for the cases to be adjudicated.  And, as an American, I object to holding them in limbo and calling it detention under the umbrella of "National Security".  

The rights to freedom and liberty are guaranteed in the Declaration and Constitutionally, and do not stem from our  government, nor from the United States, but from the Creator.  Read the Declaration of Independence again.  

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

If this is true, then ALL wo/men are endowed and we as Americans should at least have a process whereby the innocent detainees can be released or the guilty charged.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#16 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 06:20 AM

View PostCait, on 30 April 2013 - 12:42 AM, said:


I think that's a deflection.  We treat them as enemy combatants because congress passed a law allowing us to do that.  That is not military law, it is Legislative law.  That is in fact codified law, not the common law our judicial system stems from.  It's an important distinction.  One that all Americans who value liberty should be aware of.  Congress can pass any law it likes, but that won't make them all fair, just or right.

But, in any event, as an American, I object to my government holding captive anyone who cannot be charged and tried [by whatever authority civil or military] within at least, oh say, ten freaking years.  As an American who values Liberty, I object to my government acting as some authoritative dictatorship by holding anyone hostage without some sort of process for the cases to be adjudicated.  And, as an American, I object to holding them in limbo and calling it detention under the umbrella of "National Security".  

The rights to freedom and liberty are guaranteed in the Declaration and Constitutionally, and do not stem from our  government, nor from the United States, but from the Creator.  Read the Declaration of Independence again.  

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

If this is true, then ALL wo/men are endowed and we as Americans should at least have a process whereby the innocent detainees can be released or the guilty charged.

Very good points. But, the declaration and the constitution, apply to AMERICAN citizens. They do NOT apply to everyone else.

Does the idea of my government holding people, without charges and trial indefinately, bother me? Yes. But when dealing with people that have no problems strapping bombs to themselves, in the hopes of killing as many innocents as possible....it's hard not to see the government's PoV.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#17 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 07:19 AM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 30 April 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

View PostCait, on 30 April 2013 - 12:42 AM, said:

I think that's a deflection.  We treat them as enemy combatants because congress passed a law allowing us to do that.  That is not military law, it is Legislative law.  That is in fact codified law, not the common law our judicial system stems from.  It's an important distinction.  One that all Americans who value liberty should be aware of.  Congress can pass any law it likes, but that won't make them all fair, just or right.

But, in any event, as an American, I object to my government holding captive anyone who cannot be charged and tried [by whatever authority civil or military] within at least, oh say, ten freaking years.  As an American who values Liberty, I object to my government acting as some authoritative dictatorship by holding anyone hostage without some sort of process for the cases to be adjudicated.  And, as an American, I object to holding them in limbo and calling it detention under the umbrella of "National Security".  

The rights to freedom and liberty are guaranteed in the Declaration and Constitutionally, and do not stem from our  government, nor from the United States, but from the Creator.  Read the Declaration of Independence again.  

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

If this is true, then ALL wo/men are endowed and we as Americans should at least have a process whereby the innocent detainees can be released or the guilty charged.

Very good points. But, the declaration and the constitution, apply to AMERICAN citizens. They do NOT apply to everyone else.

Read them again, please.  Most constitutional rights - and especially the ones we're discussing here - do absolutely apply to everyone.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#18 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,027 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 08:11 AM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 30 April 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

But, the declaration and the constitution, apply to AMERICAN citizens. They do NOT apply to everyone else.

Whoever told you that was lying to you.

#19 cl05

cl05
  • Islander
  • 209 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 11:22 AM

The President earlier today reiterated his view that Guantanamo should be closed down but Congress refuses to do it. He says it is expensive and those convicted should be placed in maximum security prisons. If any innocent people are starving themselves out of a real depression because they've done nothing wrong then something should be done for them. Give them another trial or send them back to their home country. The others who are guilty as hell should be left alone and not forcefed. How does anyone know if they want to die out of martyrdom for their cause. Guantanamo should be shut down no doubt about it.



#20 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:39 PM

View PostOmega, on 30 April 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

View PostLord of the Sword, on 30 April 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

But, the declaration and the constitution, apply to AMERICAN citizens. They do NOT apply to everyone else.

Whoever told you that was lying to you.

Exactly.  LotS, read it again.  The Declaration is a Declaration of inalienable human rights, and because they are human rights, humans have the right to disconnect from governments that abuse the people.  It's the very basis of the Declaration, and why the Declaration is such a powerful document.  Any one, all people have the right to Liberty.  We did not invent it here in America.

That said, I think you're concerned with the particulars of Due Process for aliens.  I'm not going to get into a discussion about each and every step in due process, and what only applies to US citizens etc.  A good argument can be made for particulars, just not for the inalienable rights which are granted by the CREATOR not our government and therefore have no borders.  

What I will say is this, these detainees certainly deserve better than to be thrown into Gitmo and left to rot.  They either are dangerous and have committed acts of terrorism, and should be put in prison [not detention], or they are no danger to the US and should be freed.  They have rights, and I am sorry if the popular opinion is "They gave up their rights the minute the messed with the US",  because we don't know [and that is the point I'm making] if they "messed" with us or not.  We're literally taking the word of politicians, and I can't tell you how much I trust the word of a politician because it is non-existent.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Guantanamo, Hunger Strike, Terrorism, 2013, Obama Administration, Forced Feeding

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users