Since the UN s a viruntely anit-american (and anti-semetic) organization we would be fools to let them in to any faciltiy we run.
Let me remind you that the Taliban were given the chance to continue their existence and governance of Afghanistan. Mr. Bush said give us bin Laden and the others and we’ll stay out. Was he willing to make a deal with terrorists?
Rumsfeld didn’t mention any of that when he said no to allowing the UN expert on torture to bring a team to Guantanamo. But if you want to pick a non-partisan human rights organization, it’s fine by me.
Sure. I don’t ever think that we should force feed adults capable of choosing not to eat.
Not in perpetuity. The Geneva Convention allows for the release of prisoners if the holding party wants to release them, and mandates all prisoners be released at the end of hostilities.
But that is not required by the Geneva Convention. Seems to me it is intended by some to be used as anti-American propaganda (no matter what it says). So as Sec. of Defense, Rumsfeld is right in saying no. Providing anti-American propaganda is not the job of the Sec. of Defense.
We have-the Red Cross
Red Cross investigators cannot declare their findings publicly. Can you pick again?
So? The red cross has been the oraganization of choice for 70 some years for most countries. I think we should stick with them. You evdidently not only want inspections but also want to make sure the inspections are ploliticized.
I can’t figure out if you want us following the Geneva convention or not. But that’s beside the point. If you don’t like the UN, how about another human rights organization that can report to the public? I’m not fussy. If the Sec of Def and our government have nothing to hide, then it can bear the scrutiny of strong light.
So even if the Red Cross investigators find abuse, they can’t report if publicly. The question is whether or not the force feeding of detainees is a form of abuse. Rumsfeld claims that they are “fasting.” I’ve said I think it is abuse.
I did name a group and you rejected it . I named a gropup that seems to be acceptable by just about everyone but you.
Your talking about allowing someone to commit suicide.
If any of the prisioners at Guantanemo died from starvation there would be riots all over the Muslim world and the Left would be demanding the impeachment of George Bush. The idea that the US should sit by and let people under their care starve to death is complete and utter nonsense.
It’s also against Catholic teaching.
Agreed. And that’s the primary reason for the force feeding.
“Under their care”. That’s a nice one, right up there with “abortion provider” in the euphemism dept.
Suicide is against the law and it’s against Catholic teaching. We believe that someone who consciously does it commits a mortal sin. But to my knowledge, most of these guys aren’t Catholic.
All I asked for was a group that could make a public report. Why do you pick the one that can’t?
And another thing. Not all hunger strikes lead to death. As a practice, it has a fairly long tradition. A lot of people don’t even understand the motivation behind Catholic’s fasting and abstaining on Fridays. So I don’t think that a hunger strike should be automatically equated with suicide.
A good cause has no need for distortions like this. I compared your euphemism “under their care” (as if Guantanamo were a hospital) to “abortion provider”. Both mask what’s truly going on.