Bush Wars
See other Bush Wars Articles
Title: [Gitmo] Detainees Complain of Not Being Force-Fed During Hunger Strikes
Source:
RedState
URL Source: https://www.redstate.com/diary/Bonc ... -not-force-fed-hunger-strikes/
Published: Oct 11, 2017
Author: Bonchie
Post Date: 2017-10-12 13:28:00 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 6065
Comments: 21
As a young, semi-high child in a famous viral video once asked after being sedated at the dentist, “Is this real life?” Given the happenings of the past two years, asking that question is probably redundant but even this story is hard to believe at first. Per the New York Times, detainees at Guantanamo Bay are complaining (via their lawyers) that they are not being force-fed as rigorously while protesting with hunger strikes. Another prisoner on a lengthy hunger strike — who was hospitalized in July, though he eats a small amount of solid food each day to accompany pain medication — told his lawyer on Sept. 21 that a prison official told him a day earlier that he would not be forcibly tube-fed, either, according to the lawyer, Pardiss Kebriaei of the Center for Constitutional Rights. What’s going on here is simple. The military are not going to let these people die. What they are doing is refusing to play the prisoner’s game anymore. Typically, after a certain weight loss of a fairly conservative number, these detainees are fore-fed via feeding tube. That means that the detainees usually get to “protest” while never actually having to go hungry. What the military has decided to do now is to only intervene when medically necessary. That means many more days of detainees having to actually suffer for their cause. The Pentagon clarifies in the statement below. But Mr. Remes interpreted the move as a new strategy to induce hunger strikers to stop. He accused the military of “playing chicken” by withholding both force-feeding and medical care until the detainee was in danger of organ damage or even death. Well, no crap Mr. Remes. Isn’t that what a hunger strike is for? Maybe try advising your clients to eat their meals. Just a thought. Then there’s this shot of irony. Yes, you read that right. In the past, force-feeding has been argued by these same lawyers as torture. Now that the military is backing off, they are accusing them of human rights abuses for not force-feeding them until it becomes medically necessary. I tend to believe these men should be given trials at this point and process should move past where it is now. Still, when you are captured as a prisoner of war for an entity that continues to fight on, that complicates matters. That’s why the prison at Guantanamo has remained open this long. Those left at this point are men who have high risk levels as former President Obama cleaned just about everyone else out (only for some to return to killing Americans). From a legal standpoint, I’m not sure there’s a right to be force-fed when you refuse to eat in prison, whether we are talking domestically or in a military prison. It certainly strains credibility that these lawyers would argue force-feeding is torture while at the same time arguing the prisoners have to be force-fed. But, hey. It’s 2017. Enjoy the show. David Remes, who represents another hunger striker, said his client had been on such a strike since August but had not been tube-fed despite losing significant weight. The client also told him that other protesters were no longer being force-fed. “In some instances in the past, attempts to provide detainees who claimed that they were on hunger strike with a measure of dignity through voluntary enteral feedings unintentionally created a situation that potentially encouraged future hunger strikes,” he said. “As a result, the pre-existing standard of medical necessity will be enforced in the future.” Any such hardening of the government’s approach could put the prisoners’ lawyers in an awkward position. Though they say they do not want their clients to die, many have also argued that force-feeding amounts to torture and violates medical ethics. For now, the three lawyers said they are seeking independent medical evaluations of their clients.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
#2. To: Tooconservative (#0)
From a legal standpoind, I'm not sure the US has a legal standing for imprisoning foreigners for things they did in their own country. To me, any scrutiny of how such prisoners behaved or complained while in questionable legal or moral captivity is immaterial.
Unlawful combatants can be held until the combat is over. Whether they are properly classified as unlawful combatants is another question.
Which in the context of the perpetual war on whatever would be... when, exactly? https://www.google.com/search? source=hp&q=perpetual+war+1984
Exactly. There is also the morality of applying laws to people without their consent. For example, if in the USA, someone was not permitted to vote, and yet was also considered subject to laws that were enacted by those who were elected, that would be considered immoral. The whole "No taxation without representation" bit comes to mind. The right to vote is the right to have consent over the laws to which one is subject. If there's no vote, there's no consent, which equates to unethical rule. So tell me whether the Afghanis as a whole consented to laws that condemn them to 15+ years in prison for resisting with force foreign invaders of their country? All this talk about how Gitmo is okay because it's in line with "international law" is a red herring, I'd say. It may be in line with international law, but that doesn't necessarily make it ethical.
#11. To: Pinguinite (#10)
Uhuh. "TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS governments are instituted among men, deriving their JUST POWERS from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED" What does this mean? (And "it's just a GD piece of paper" is the WRONG answer)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestFrom a legal standpoint, I’m not sure there’s a right...
#7. To: Pinguinite, Tooconservative (#2)
From a legal standpoind, I'm not sure the US has a legal standing for imprisoning foreigners for things they did in their own country.
#8. To: nolu chan, Pinguinite, Tooconservative (#7)
(Edited)
Unlawful combatants can be held until the combat is over
#10. To: VxH, nolu chan, Tooconservative (#8)
Which in the context of the perpetual war on whatever would be... when, exactly?
Replies to Comment # 10. There is also the morality of applying laws to people without their consent
End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]