Why is force feeding hunger strikers a bad thing?

@CalamityJane,

When they did it up the rectum, yes it was. In recent years, they have discontinued the practice of the enhanced interrogation (so called.) Obama simply said he didn't want the prisoners to die as way of explanation of the force feedings. However, a lot of doctors have said force feeding is inhumane at the best of circumstances so I am hoping the administration takes that into consideration the next time a hunger strike commences. If they don't, then, they will be guilty.

On the other hand someone brought up a circumstance where a leader allowed them to die and they were criticized for that as well. The best thing would be for congress to allow the administration to shut the place down as that is the only demand the detainees want.

I realize it is much simpler to just criticized the US rather than looking at the problem as whole and having real solutions offered.

Gitmo dilemma: Force-feeding violates international law

2 Replies

@revelette2,

I agree somewhat, revelette2! However, why is the United States part of the Geneva Convention if at the end is violating everything that is part of the treaty? The U.S. government was/is always operating under the assumption that they're an exception!

What's good for the goose is NOT so good for the gander.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

The only way it will be closed is if we set up an identical facility on US soil.

Hopefully if such a thing is done it will be paid for by a tax on anti-war protesters so that normal Americans won't have to pay for the needless duplication.

Having been to Gitmo back in its earlier days as a naval base, I can tell you with 100% certainty that having it on US soil would save taxpayers big. Maintaining a facility where everything and all the people have to come in via air or water while maintaining security against the home country who doesn't want you there is not a cheap endeavor.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

The best thing would be for congress to allow the administration to shut the place down as that is the only demand the detainees want.

The detainees will be just as prone to hunger strikes if we move the detention camp to the US and hold them here.

0 Replies

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

However, why is the United States part of the Geneva Convention if at the end is violating everything that is part of the treaty?

Aside from the torture (which was carried out in Europe, not at Guantanamo), the US has not violated any of the Geneva Conventions.

0 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Having been to Gitmo back in its earlier days as a naval base, I can tell you with 100% certainty that having it on US soil would save taxpayers big. Maintaining a facility where everything and all the people have to come in via air or water while maintaining security against the home country who doesn't want you there is not a cheap endeavor.

Keep in mind that Guantanamo is already built and paid for. Recreating the detention site on US soil would at a minimum require refurbishing an abandoned US prison and transforming it into a similar facility.

The real reason the Democrats wanted to move the detention site to US soil is because they had spewed a bunch of lies about Guantanamo being a place where torture was being carried out in order to taint the Bush Administration, and they hoped that moving the site to US soil would spare them from the same taint.

That's also why the Republicans blocked them from doing it.

I'm not sure why security from Cuba would cost a lot. It's not like the Cubans are trying to capture the base. But the site will continue as a Naval base even if the detention facility is moved to US soil, so that cost will continue regardless.

0 Replies

I am all for keeping Gitmo open. Just free the innocents kids from it and put Bush and Cheney in orange jumpers instead. You can force feed them anally if required.

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

We have violated it in spirit and truth, I agree. On some points, the US feels it hasn't violated it. However, the last administration legally decided the GC was quaint and disregarded it. I really don't know how to address those wrongs and there isn't any defending it.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

If the people captured had been in uniform instead of hiding in the civilian population, they might have been treated a POW's. To bad they are not POW's, they never belonged to the standing army.

When the people we fight refuse to follow the rules, I don't see why we should follow the rules in regards to their treatment.

3 Replies

@Baldimo,

Perhaps you should know the rules before you argue you don't want to follow them.

Being in uniform is not a requirement of the Geneva convention in order to be treated as a POW.

1 Reply

@parados,

The people who were caught were not part of a standing army. I'm sorry but the GC should not apply to those who fight the way terrorists do. If they want better treatment, they should learn to hand it out.

We water board people and they cut people's heads off. You are mad at the US, but not the terrorists. You give them a million excuses. I'm sure when they start killing people and using the report as a reason why, you will be one of the first ones to say we had it coming. Your one side compassion is laughable.

I'll say it as others have, water boarding is not torture. Our own high level military personal, Special forces, go through tougher times in SERE school. Hell they use stress positions on people in basic training as punishment.

You bleeding hearts have your compassion misplaced.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Someone who supports the use of waterboarding, supports the use of that and other torture on any future American captives.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Are you naive enough to think it doesn't go on now? Beheading is what happens to people taken by terrorists. Do they follow or have they signed onto the GC?

In case you missed it Walter, the US military already does this type of training on our soldiers. It gives them an idea what to expect when they are captured. As I also already said, stress positions are used in basic training as a form of punishment.

I already know that if I was captured when I was deployed that I would be tortured and far worse then anything the people we grabbed had gotten. That is a given when you deal with people who are savages. I knew this going into Pakistan and Afghanistan. I was a member of a Chinook Aircrew. There were briefings and training's I was part of that let me know what I would be subjected to. The secret is to know that you will break, that is a given. The other secret is to hold out as long as you can, give false info when you do break and to keep in mind that there is no shame in breaking. EVERYONE breaks.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

The other secret is to hold out as long as you can, give false info when you do break and to keep in mind that there is no shame in breaking. EVERYONE breaks.

this is everybody's secret

which is why it doesn't work for meaningful information gathering

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Sometimes the prisoner's secret is that he has nothing BUT false information to share, yet the torture continues unabated.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Are you naive enough to think it doesn't go on now? Beheading is what happens to people taken by terrorists. Do they follow or have they signed onto the GC? ...
I already know that if I was captured when I was deployed that I would be tortured and far worse then anything the people we grabbed had gotten.

I know, and I'm not naive.
(When my father was taken POW by the US, he was mock-executed ... despite being a non-combatant surgeon-lieutenant. - I've been in the interrogative team during some exercises: we were trained differently, but that was just 'cold war'.)

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I am all for keeping Gitmo open. Just free the innocents kids from it and put Bush and Cheney in orange jumpers instead. You can force feed them anally if required.

Guilt and innocence has nothing to do with whether a captured enemy fighter is detained until the end of the war.

I presume that by "innocent" you really mean "civilian". Note that all the civilians were released long ago.

The people who we are currently releasing are low-level militants who we don't care about holding. A low-level militant is not a civilian.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

If the people captured had been in uniform instead of hiding in the civilian population, they might have been treated a POW's. To bad they are not POW's, they never belonged to the standing army.
When the people we fight refuse to follow the rules, I don't see why we should follow the rules in regards to their treatment.

Actually we are treating some of them as POWs. It is our justification for holding them without charge.

However, some of them will be criminally prosecuted instead of being held as POWs.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

We water board people and they cut people's heads off. You are mad at the US, but not the terrorists.

That's why they're called terrorists, Baldimo. They behead innocent people.
The U.S. tortures people that are according to U.S. law "innocent until proven guilty under a court of law". None of it happened though! Regardless, if it is okay for terrorists and extremists to act in a barbaric manner, then the United States can do so as well - that's what you're saying, right? With your mindset you position the U.S. on the same level with terrorists.
Maybe if you're capable of it, you should rethink your stance here.

1 Reply

That will be a violation if there is force in anything that you do that, the person refuse to do such thing. But if the person is willing to do things without force that's what you call voluntary. There are people that need to undergo hunger strike because of their belief or for the fight for their rights.

0 Replies

Why is force feeding hunger strikers a bad thing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know