Why is force feeding hunger strikers a bad thing?

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

why the hell should they have been in uniform? people don't automatically put on uniforms when their countries are being invaded
soldiers put on uniforms

It's a thing with international law. Uniformed soldiers have to be treated as POWs when they are captured.

Unlawful combatants can be tried and hung when they are captured. Though I suppose we'd use lethal injection instead of hanging these days if we executed any.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

that might be fine if they were combatants

many of the people held at Gitmo were never combatants

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

that might be fine if they were combatants
many of the people held at Gitmo were never combatants

We did our best to weed them out.

Unless we are still holding some Chinese Uighurs (I don't think we are, but don't know for sure), it is unlikely that any civilians are still being held.

Right now we're trying to release low-level combatants who we do have the right to hold, but would prefer to release because they are no threat to us.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Honestly, it's too little, too late.

His lack of prompt and promised action re Gitmo is where Obama lost some people who had tentatively supported him. We've seen that here, and I've seen it at other forums as well.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

And yet the republican house that stopped the closing of Gitmo wasent held responsible. Go figure.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

Why is force feeding hunger strikers a bad thing?

Because it's a violation of the prisoner's physical integrity, and a demeaning one at that. It's wrong for the the same reason any other form of unwelcome touching is wrong. And in addition, this form is far more physically violent.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
that might be fine if they were combatants
many of the people held at Gitmo were never combatants

We did our best to weed them out.

As it turns out, 'our best' wasn't good enough. In fact, it was pretty bad; it sucked syphillic camel's arse.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Honestly, it's too little, too late.
His lack of prompt and promised action re Gitmo is where Obama lost some people who had tentatively supported him. We've seen that here, and I've seen it at other forums as well.

The Democrats were too clever for their own good. They fostered the false impression that Guantanamo was somehow a human rights violation in order to taint the Bush Administration.

The Democrats thought that if they closed Guantanamo and replaced it with an identical facility on US soil, they could hype the closure of Guantanamo to spare themselves from the same taint.

The Democrats never stopped to think that the Republicans might be able to prevent that identical facility from being built on US soil, thereby forcing the Democrats to keep Guantanamo open.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

oralloy wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
that might be fine if they were combatants
many of the people held at Gitmo were never combatants

We did our best to weed them out.

As it turns out, 'our best' wasn't good enough. In fact, it was pretty bad; it sucked syphillic camel's arse.

What was so bad about it? Are there any civilians still being held there erroneously?

0 Replies

Why is force feeding hunger strikers a bad thing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know