Guantanamo to force-feed prisoners during Ramadan

  • Page

    of 2 First / Last

    Previous
  • sirtacos 5 Jul 2013 08:48:53 7,267 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/guantanamo-bay-hunger-strike-detainees-ramadan

    Sensationalist and inflammatory title, and admittedly the article is from the Guardian, but still, the facts/statements coming from the White House speak for themselves, and the only response I can muster is

    {0_o}

    Clarification: force feeding is only to be used on those participating in the hunger strike. (The title makes it sound as if they'll indiscriminately shove tubes down the gullets of every prisoner observing Ramandan, just for evil shits and giggles.)

    The Obama administration really hasn't done much to take that giant bullseye off its country, has it?

    The argument that, technically, the prisoners are "non-persons" and thus do not fall under the purview of basic human rights is just... wow. I don't even.
  • Deleted user 5 July 2013 08:50:40
    The petition by just 4 of the 100 it effects suggests this is a non issue for them.
  • LeoliansBro 5 Jul 2013 08:52:07 43,114 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I bet they don't let Christians drink wine when they take communion either.

    Not sure what my point is, really.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MrTomFTW Moderator 5 Jul 2013 08:52:11 37,295 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    sirtacos wrote:
    The Obama administration really hasn't done much to take that giant bullseye off its country, has it?
    No kidding. I seem to remember the first thing Obama announced at the beginning of his first term was "WE'RE CLOSING GUANTANAMO!"

    Now it's "lol jk not relly guis"

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • sirtacos 5 Jul 2013 08:56:58 7,267 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    The petition by just 4 of the 100 it effects suggests this is a non issue for them.
    That's actually a good point. I'd skimmed over that part of the article.

    Never mind, then. (That is assuming that all prisoners have ready access to legal counsel and were made aware of the petition and weren't intimidated into not signing it.)

    The discussion over Guantanamo being a hugely unnecessary blight on the US' image still has merit though
  • Youthist 5 Jul 2013 08:57:06 10,010 posts
    Seen 41 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I think if I was certain that everyone detained within it was guilty of terrorist acts then I would say 'knock yourself out guys' on whatever they were doing to make their lives pretty much hell.

    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise half of them are stupider than that

  • LeoliansBro 5 Jul 2013 09:00:20 43,114 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Unfortunately nobody in Guantanamo has been convicted of anything.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • sirtacos 5 Jul 2013 09:01:36 7,267 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Many (some) of them have actually been cleared for release. Some of them repeatedly.

    Edited by sirtacos at 09:01:55 05-07-2013
  • MrTomFTW Moderator 5 Jul 2013 09:19:49 37,295 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Oh do be quiet.

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • monkman76 5 Jul 2013 09:24:13 3,912 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    sirtacos wrote:
    Aargh. wrote:
    The petition by just 4 of the 100 it effects suggests this is a non issue for them.
    That's actually a good point. I'd skimmed over that part of the article.

    Never mind, then. (That is assuming that all prisoners have ready access to legal counsel and were made aware of the petition and weren't intimidated into not signing it.)
    No it isn't. Come on. They're on hunger strike, being force-fed against their will, and now against their beliefs. But they didn't sign a petition (which will unquestionably end all their suffering unlike anything else so far), so clearly they don't really mind. It's all fine.

    Edited by monkman76 at 09:24:49 05-07-2013

    Edited by monkman76 at 09:25:18 05-07-2013
  • Aretak 5 Jul 2013 09:27:45 10,345 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    MrTomFTW wrote:
    sirtacos wrote:
    The Obama administration really hasn't done much to take that giant bullseye off its country, has it?
    No kidding. I seem to remember the first thing Obama announced at the beginning of his first term was "WE'RE CLOSING GUANTANAMO!"

    Now it's "lol jk not relly guis"
    He's tried several times (indeed it was one of the first things he did when he took office), but the proposals have just been shot down by Congress on every occasion. The reality is that there's not really anything he can do about it without support. His mistake was ever promising to close it in the first place. Whether he was naive or just saying what he thought would get him elected, it was never going to be a promise he could keep.
  • LeoliansBro 5 Jul 2013 09:29:08 43,114 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    When he was first elected he had Senate and HoR majorities. He could have done it then with a little arm twisting.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LetsGo 5 Jul 2013 09:32:27 5,161 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Why does Obama never get any stick for Guantanamo? Didn't he say he would close it down?
  • Youthist 5 Jul 2013 09:33:15 10,010 posts
    Seen 41 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Unfortunately nobody in Guantanamo has been convicted of anything.
    Yes I know. If I knew they were guilty, is what I am saying.

    Innocent people being waterboarded / tortured I am not such a big fan of.

    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise half of them are stupider than that

  • LeoliansBro 5 Jul 2013 09:34:56 43,114 posts
    Seen 15 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I'm actually one of those bleeding heart liberals who doesn't really think waterboarding and torture is appropriate in any situation. I get the interrogation / Jack Bauer getting the info to avert disaster angle, but I'd like to see evidence that this has ever worked in real life and a damn sight more transparency.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Aretak 5 Jul 2013 09:36:40 10,345 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    When he was first elected he had Senate and HoR majorities. He could have done it then with a little arm twisting.
    The vote was 90-6 in favour of blocking the funds needed to transfer or release prisoners from Guantanamo, and that vote happened in May 2009, four months after Obama took office. A majority doesn't mean much when your own party votes against you too.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/senate-votes-to-block-fun_n_205797.html
  • sirtacos 5 Jul 2013 09:36:56 7,267 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @monkman76 Yeah that was rather silly of me. The entire situation is ridiculous to begin with though, so the force-feeding seems almost trivial in comparison to the larger issue, which is that the Guantanamo prison shouldn't exist in the first place. Besides, I almost understand the logic - can't let the prisoners die of a hunger strike. So let's stick an IV/feeding tube in them. It's appalling logic for a ridiculous situation, but either way the result is more shitty press. (Rightly deserved shitty press.)

    The Ramadan thing seems like the wrong thing to focus on though. Considering it's only one detail (with a major potential for a shitstorm is the right spin is applied) amongst a multitude of instances of brazen contempt for basic human rights.

    Edited by sirtacos at 09:43:04 05-07-2013
  • monkman76 5 Jul 2013 09:38:48 3,912 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    I'm actually one of those bleeding heart liberals who doesn't really think waterboarding and torture is appropriate in any situation. I get the interrogation / Jack Bauer getting the info to avert disaster angle, but I'd like to see evidence that this has ever worked in real life and a damn sight more transparency.
    I know you're probably being a bit facetious but I don't think that view makes you a bleeding heart liberal, I'd go for 'reasonable, civilised human'..
  • LetsGo 5 Jul 2013 09:38:56 5,161 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Aretak wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    When he was first elected he had Senate and HoR majorities. He could have done it then with a little arm twisting.
    The vote was 90-6 in favour of blocking the funds needed to transfer or release prisoners from Guantanamo, and that vote happened in May 2009, four months after Obama took office. A majority doesn't mean much when your own party votes against you too.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/senate-votes-to-block-fun_n_205797.html
    Excuses, excuses, excuses! He could at least visit the place and give better treatment to the people being held there.

    Or does he need to ask the senate for that too?
  • Youthist 5 Jul 2013 11:43:37 10,010 posts
    Seen 41 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    monkman76 wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    I'm actually one of those bleeding heart liberals who doesn't really think waterboarding and torture is appropriate in any situation. I get the interrogation / Jack Bauer getting the info to avert disaster angle, but I'd like to see evidence that this has ever worked in real life and a damn sight more transparency.
    I know you're probably being a bit facetious but I don't think that view makes you a bleeding heart liberal, I'd go for 'reasonable, civilised human'..
    Actually I am to be fair not that bothered if it works - for me, if they are actually nailed-on guilty of terrorism or related terrorist activity, then knock yourself out regardless of whether it works or not. I say just give them a medium to large electric shock at 11.00AM every day or something.

    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise half of them are stupider than that

  • monkman76 5 Jul 2013 11:46:30 3,912 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.
  • sirtacos 5 Jul 2013 11:47:50 7,267 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @Youthist

    By 'terrorist activity' I'm sure you mean something like "plotted to blow up a packed train station", but I hope you realise that the definition of terrorist-related activities potentially encompasses a whole lot more than that? So - knowing full well what that sort of vengeful and barbaric behaviour implies - you're seriously advocating torture - just because fuck em - on a wide scale? Ok then.

    Then again you're a reg and I don't have you pegged as a weird reactionary sort of guy, so hopefully your sardonic tone completely flew over my head. The alternative is a bit too sinister to buy into at face value TBH

    Edited by sirtacos at 12:03:43 05-07-2013
  • welshben23 5 Jul 2013 11:48:12 1,072 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Graveland wrote:
    Just wait until this news reaches the usual rabble-rousing retards of the Muslim world: "You forced Muslims to eat three meals a day! This is an outrage and a direct attack on Islam itself! America is the Great Satan. Quick, let's riot and kill hundreds of our fellow brethren."

    Then the news of the Taliban shooting dead young girls reaches them "Oh, those cheeky chappies. They know that that is against the Qur'an. How many times do I have to tell Mo and his mates that if he's going to kill some young girls he should behead them instead, as this is the proscribed method in the Qur'an. Silly Mo, perhaps he'll learn one day, eh?"
    Is it wrong that I laughed a lot at this? :)
  • Zizoo 5 Jul 2013 11:50:43 8,092 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Graveland wrote:
    Just wait until this news reaches the usual rabble-rousing retards of the Muslim world: "You forced Muslims to eat three meals a day! This is an outrage and a direct attack on Islam itself! America is the Great Satan. Quick, let's riot and kill hundreds of our fellow brethren."

    Then the news of the Taliban shooting dead young girls reaches them "Oh, those cheeky chappies. They know that that is against the Qur'an. How many times do I have to tell Mo and his mates that if he's going to kill some young girls he should behead them instead, as this is the proscribed method in the Qur'an. Silly Mo, perhaps he'll learn one day, eh?"
    zzz
  • disusedgenius 5 Jul 2013 11:53:48 5,195 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Maybe they'll just force feed them in the evening instead?
  • nickthegun 5 Jul 2013 11:58:30 58,777 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    We force feed Peter Sutcliffe. I cant really see why this is any different.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • monkman76 5 Jul 2013 12:01:14 3,912 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Because he's been tried and convicted? For one.
  • nickthegun 5 Jul 2013 12:03:11 58,777 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Fair point, but they arent going to let them die while under their supervision. They are damned either way.

    AMERICA ALLOWS MUSLIMS TO DIE DURING RAMADAN

    AMERICA FORCE FEEDS MUSLIMS DURING RAMADAN

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Youthist 5 Jul 2013 12:03:58 10,010 posts
    Seen 41 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    sirtacos wrote:
    By 'terrorist activity' I'm sure you mean something like "plotted to blow up a packed train station", but I hope you realise that the definition of terrorist-related activities potentially encompasses a whole lot more than that? So - knowing full well what that sort of vengeful and barbaric behaviour implies - you're seriously advocating torture - just because fuck em - on a wide scale? Ok then.
    Well, clearly not. Take the ones that plotted to blow up a packed train station (etc) and do it to just them.

    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise half of them are stupider than that

  • Page

    of 2 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply