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

#21 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:50 PM

http://www.thedailyb...mo-failure.html

Quote



Why are these men enduring such a painful protest? Our clients have told us.  It stems from Obama’s catastrophic failure to end indefinite detention without charge or trial, which, for all but a few of Guantanamo’s remaining 166 prisoners, has entered its 12th year. Obama’s failure feels particularly inexplicable—and unjust—to those 86 men the Obama administration itself has cleared for release from Guantánamo.

Unable to speak out in the face of this injustice, these men protest peacefully with their bodies.  They are willing to endure the physical torment of hunger, brutal force feeding, and emaciation because they can no longer endure the psychological torment of unjust and perpetual detention and because the pain of being forcibly held thousands of miles from family is even worse.  According to Sabry Mohammed, another man CCR attorneys met with recently at the base, “I don’t want to die, I want to return to my family, but I have been pushed too far.”


and....

http://www.huffingto..._n_3178636.html

Quote


About 40 sailors arrived at the Guantanamo Bay over the weekend to help deal with a hunger strike involving 100 of the 166 detainees being held on the remote naval base.

"We will not allow a detainee to starve themselves to death and we will continue to treat each person humanely," Lt. Col. Samuel House said in a statement. "Detainees have the right to peacefully protest, but we have the responsibility to ensure that they conduct their protest safely and humanely. Detainees are given a choice: eat the hot meal, drink the supplement, or be enteral fed."

Twenty-one Guantanamo detainees are currently being tube fed, and five of them are being observed in a hospital with non-life threatening conditions, according to House. House said "most" of the detainees approved for tube feeding "will eat or drink without the peer pressure from inside the cell block."


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


#22 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:58 PM

I think part of it is, where do they go? back to the tribal badlands like others released, to make fresh IED and suicide vests? no actual country wants them, incl Afghan and Pakistan- how do we send them back when no gov wants them? land them by helo or STol assault plane in the waziri or baluch desert valley and dust off fast before a Sagger or stinger hits? then they melt off into the enemyville only to pop up next season killing thirty kids at some school target or family mosque of the wrong flavour? no one knows what to do with those guys and no one wants to do an intake. ................ I say, fly em off to the beach by Karachi, let em off in the surf there, tell em they can go anywhere they want in any direction, 'even though no country wants you' , and they can make their way best fit, 'only the strong survive', into those tribal badlands, on their own, (but then the Pak gov will have to deal with the violence when their heads pop up again?) - it is a quandry: just like the two state idea in Israel.
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#23 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 01:23 PM

View Postoffworlder, on 30 April 2013 - 12:58 PM, said:

I think part of it is, where do they go? back to the tribal badlands like others released, to make fresh IED and suicide vests? no actual country wants them, incl Afghan and Pakistan- how do we send them back when no gov wants them?

According to the article I quoted, this isn't the problem at all.

http://www.thedailyb...mo-failure.html

Quote

Moreover, the most direct limitation on his ability to successfully close the prison is self-inflicted: a ban on all transfers to Yemen, which roughly 90 of the men at Guantánamo call home.  Imposed following an attempted attack in 2009 by the so-called Underwear Bomber, the moratorium amounts to collective punishment based purely on where they happened to be born. Ultimately, Obama’s failure to close Guantánamo is due to an absence of will, not an absence of authority.

And, as much as people will say these men will go back to the caves in Afghanistan and build bombs, we're not talking about actual terrorists.  86 of the men being held have been CLEARED.  They just ant to go home, and apparently for many, that home is Yemen, a country we have declared we won't transfer people to.  It's not Yemen saying they won't take them back.  It is the US saying we won't let them go there.  Read the article.

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


#24 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 01:31 PM

View PostCait, on 30 April 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:


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.

Actually, we did. Until the declaration was written, there was no right to liberty. In fact, it was written because we were breaking away from England. The declaration was the way the founding fathers went about beginning their revolution...Which, in the eyes of England, was illegal.

To apply American declaration to the entire world...that's why people hate the USA. You can't insert your own beliefs on someone else, or another country.

Quote

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.

I agree, they should be treated better. Which is why I'm all for letting them do their hunger strike. If they don't want to eat, or drink, that is their choice. I also don't agree with the indefinate detentions, but I do understand the government's concerns.
"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

#25 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 30 April 2013 - 02:10 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 30 April 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Actually, we did. Until the declaration was written, there was no right to liberty. In fact, it was written because we were breaking away from England. The declaration was the way the founding fathers went about beginning their revolution...Which, in the eyes of England, was illegal.


Actually you are part right and partially wrong.  Not to take this thread to far off topic, but the Declaration was indeed written to justify our own Revolution.  That much is correct.  But, within the text of the Declaration are the beliefs that "all men are created equal".  It doesn't say all Englishmen are created equal or all American men are created equal, it states pretty clearly that ALL men are created equal.


Quote

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


This happens to be one of my favorite topics, so I am going to go into it.  The Declaration wasn't really new, Magna Carta really set the stage for the Declaration.  So, Americans didn't invent Liberty.  But, regardless of the genesis of the Declaration, the truth is in the text.  The preamble is deliciously revolutionary, but it isn't  revolutionary because it applies solely to the American Revolution.  The declaration is revolutionary because the basis of it is predicated on the "Rights of men"  and that governments are instituted to protect to god-given rights of men.  Not the other way around.  

In fact, the Founders were very aware of just how far reaching the Declaration was and were careful to construct a Constitution where there were checks and balances so the people never felt they had to revolt against the new government, using the very same document and ideal that was expressed in the Declaration.  It was that far reaching a document.  many say that the Declaration was revolutionary, and the Constitution was anti-revolutionary, and it had to be because the Declaration told all men they could resit the government.  It told all men that they were endowed with certain inalienable rights, among them Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness.  

The declaration wasn't just something that applied to the United States, which wasn't even in existence at the time of its writing.  No, the declaration was a statement for all men and all governments, AND is one of the reasons why I feel the USA has become the great nation it is now.  We believe in the rights of all men.  We say so in our very own declaration and we have fought many wars in the name of Liberty.  Like it or not, the Declaration is applicable to ALL men, because if it isn't, then it is a lie.  [and I personally do not think it was or is a lie].

All men [and women of course] are created equal.

All wo/men are endowed with certain inalienable rights, by their creator.

All governments are in existence to defend the Liberty of men and to secure these rights to all men and women and exist for no other reason.

This was the greatness of the Declaration, and it was great because it was breathtaking in its reach and NOT limited to the 13 colonies.

I know this sounded a little preachy, and I don't mean it to be, I just have really  studied [and written on]  the Declaration, and its relationship to the Constitution.  I would agree in most instances that the Constitution is indeed only applicable to US citizens.  It is the law of the land, and I believe laws need to have a jurisdiction to be administered fairly.  BUT, the Declaration is universal in its principles.  It has to be.  It was intended to be by the Founders and for very good reasons.  They were justifying a revolution after all, and the did a damn fine job of it for us, and for the world.  The document justifies ANY revolution based on its principles, and therefore applies to all men and women.

end of lecture.. LOL

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


#26 DarthMarley

DarthMarley
  • Islander
  • 1,292 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 07:03 AM

View PostDev F, on 29 April 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

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 don't think the government should be trusted to do anything.
It can't effectively run a railroad, manage the economy, or offer foolproof protection against pissed off foreigners.
Of course it can't humanely manage an extrajudicial prison camp.

Metrics about innocents are compelling, but what metrcis are available for recidivism among those who have been released?
Some chattering head claimed 30% of released Camp Justice detainees went on to kill on the battlefield again.

Indefinite detention is a moral issue to deal with. But conditions reported at the camp are not alarming to me.

As for the application of the US constitution to non-citizens, it absolutely applies to non-citizens within the territorial USA. I have a dim memory of a landmark case extending such rights to the GITMO prisoneers, so as a matter of case law, constitutional protections seem to apply.
"It is not who is right, but what is right that is of importance."



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