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: 4663
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
#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)
Well, as a US taxpayer, I am complaining that tax dollars were spent on them, and that they were not allowed to starve to death, or taken out on the ocean, and fed to sharks !! Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers)
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.
...do these prisoners have a constitutional right to demand that they be force-fed?
The food is there. If they don't pick up a fork and eat it, that's their decision. We aren't required to baby the sons of bitches.
If we don't care about the constitionality of their detainment,why would we care about the constitutionality of their treatment?
No. Force feeding is a violation of international law. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/opinion/nocera-is-force-feeding-torture.html Joe Nocera [excerpt] Force-feeding has been labeled a violation on the ban of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The World Medical Association holds that it is unethical for a doctor to participate in force-feeding. Put simply, force-feeding violates international law.
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
Unethical maybe. Exactly which international law forbids forced feeding? Does that law, if it exists, apply to the USA. We don't belong to the ICC and some other so-called international courts.
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.
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)
I'm kinda outraged about it,too. IMHO,those on hunger strikes should have been force fed raw hog penises,anuses,and testicles. The guards could use hog feces as gravy to help them get it down. After all,I wouldn't want them to suffer. That's just the kind of thoughtful,considerate guy I am. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Solid food could, however, be detrimental to their health given the impaired state of a hunger striker's shrunken stomach. The compassionate and humane thing to do would be to liquefy those ingredients into an easily digestible shake. Just sayin'
I'd prefer they don't force-feed at all. Not just in Gitmo but most anywhere. This case is ridiculous because they sued to stop the force-feeding because it was (supposedly) torture. Now they want to sue for not force-feeding when they think it is appropriate to start. I think these criminals should be tried and serve prison terms and then be deported. Most of them should just be executed.
Whenever the combat ends. Prisoners of War are released at the end of the war. When does a war end? The real problem here is classifying the Gitmo prisoners as any manner of combatant. To have a war (or International Armed Conflict), there must be a conflict between two or more states. The only one of the terrorist groups that formed a government of a state was the Taliban, for a time. For that time, Taliban could have been combatants. Short of armed conflict of an international character, there are no recognized combatants, lawful or unlawful.
International Humanitarian Law.
You mean to say the International Red Cross makes law? How is that?
And we are signatory to a treaty that specifies this? And we belong to and support an international court with jurisdiction over us in these matters?
International Humanitarian Law applies to one and all and there is no need to sign anything.
It's international.
We ignore a lot of so-called international law because we do not recognize the edicts of the International Criminal Court and we are not subject to it or its decisions. If Americans who are condemned by it should travel in Europe, for instance, they might be arrested. Prez Bush Junior cancelled a trip to the EU, apparently for fear of arrest. Cheney and others seem unwilling to go anywhere overseas any more either. Similarly, the CIA personnel who flew jets with prisoners to secret torture prisons in eastern Europe cannot go to Europe without fearing arrest and prosecution.
" Detainees Complain of Not Being Force-Fed During Hunger Strikes "
#2. To: Tooconservative (#0)
From a legal standpoint, I’m not sure there’s a right...
#3. To: Pinguinite (#2)
From a legal standpoint,...
#4. To: Tooconservative (#0)
Detainees Complain of Not Being Force-Fed During Hunger Strikes
#5. To: Tooconservative (#3)
#6. To: Tooconservative, Pinguinite (#3)
...do these prisoners have a constitutional right to demand that they be force-fed?
Is Force-Feeding Torture?
New York Times
May 31, 2013
#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
#9. To: nolu chan (#6)
Put simply, force-feeding violates international law.
#10. To: VxH, nolu chan, Tooconservative (#8)
Which in the context of the perpetual war on whatever would be... when, exactly?
#11. To: Pinguinite (#10)
There is also the morality of applying laws to people without their consent
#12. To: Tooconservative (#0)
#13. To: sneakypete (#12)
(Edited)
IMHO,those on hunger strikes should have been force fed raw hog penises,anuses,and testicles.
#14. To: sneakypete (#12)
#15. To: VxH, Pinguinite, Tooconservative (#8)
Which in the context of the perpetual war on whatever would be...
#16. To: Tooconservative (#9)
Unethical maybe. Exactly which international law forbids forced feeding?
#17. To: nolu chan (#16)
#18. To: nolu chan (#16)
International Humanitarian Law.
#19. To: Tooconservative (#18)
And we are signatory to a treaty that specifies this? And we belong to and support an international court with jurisdiction over us in these matters?
#20. To: buckeroo (#17)
You mean to say the International Red Cross makes law? How is that?
#21. To: nolu chan (#19)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]