Force feeding in Guantanemo

  • Thread starter Thread starter stadre
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
gnjsdad:
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.
Click to expand...
How am I read the above and NOT come to the conclusion you are comparing the military to abortion providers?? And what is being masked in GITMO?

BTW-as one whohas worked in the pro-life movement for 30 years II resent your comparing those who kill the unborn with those who guard enemy combatants. Not onl;y does it demean our troops but it trivializes what goes on in abortion mills.
 
40.png
Thekla:
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.
Click to expand...
It is still a grievously disordered behavior that cannot be supported by a Catholic.
 
40.png
gilliam:
It is still a grievously disordered behavior that cannot be supported by a Catholic.
Click to expand...
Words like “supported” need an explanation. What does that mean, “supported?” And don’t you agree that all hunger strikes are not suicides? I’m sure we could find priests and nuns who have engaged in hunger strikes.
 
40.png
estesbob:
even though there are no allegations anything is being done wrong
Click to expand...
No allegations? Just go read the court testimony…

"In her memorandum opinion, Judge Kessler quoted a declaration by Julia Tarver, the counsel for three of the petitioners. It was submitted to the court after she had visited her clients at Guantánamo from September 30 to October 2 of this year (2005).
Julia Tarver wrote that during the forced feeding of Yousef Al Shehri, as the tubes were inserted “through [his] nose, down the throat, and into the stomach, Al Shehri was given no sedative for the procedure; instead, two soldiers restrained him—one holding his chin while the other held him back by his hair and a medical staff member forcefully inserted the tube in his nose and down his throat. . . . He could not speak for two days [and] he could not sleep because of the severe pain.” Judge Kessler wrote that "the procedure caused him and other detainees to vomit ‘substantial amounts of blood.’ "

Judge Kessler then wrote: "Petitioners assert that because of this needlessly cruel and painful treatment, Al Shehri ‘can no longer walk.’ " The judge further quoted from Tarver’s account: “He lost some of his vision, and he is vomiting every day. . . . He has severe headaches and great pain in his ear. He is only able to urinate once every few days. . . . He has given his last will and testament, as he fully anticipates that he is going to die.”

Said Judge Kessler: “It goes without saying that this Court need not wait to issue injunctive relief until a detainee has died.”

She went on: “The court concludes that Petitioners have provided sufficient facts . . . to establish that the threat of death or serious physical deterioration is real and imminent, and that Petitioners have satisfied the requirement of facing irreparable harm unless injunctive relief is granted.”
 
40.png
Thekla:
Words like “supported” need an explanation. What does that mean, “supported?” And don’t you agree that all hunger strikes are not suicides? I’m sure we could find priests and nuns who have engaged in hunger strikes.
Click to expand...
You are correct here. Hunger strikes are used by those who don’t think they have any better way of getting attention. But simply getting attention is not always a positive thing. My Scouts want attention all the time. Sometimes it is for good, and sometimes it is not.

However, when hunger strikes get to the point of endangering someone’s life, and they are not doing it for specific reasons, then we cannot support it. What reasons? They are spelled out in the Catechism:

**2282 **If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

From what I can tell, they are going on hunger strikes at Geronimo to protest living conditions and to get better care. This hardly fits the threshold of the Catechism. No matter how much you might hate Bush politically.

The Pentagon spokesman would not be drawn yesterday on why so many detainees had abandoned their protest. However, one official said: “The hunger strike issue is more of a publicity ploy than anything else. Al-Qaida training manuals tell them what type of resistance to offer when detained.” He added: “Maybe they started eating again since it didn’t work.”

I guess, from the Guardian report quoted above, that the vast majority of those who went on strike have since changed their minds. The report mentioned they are down to 9 protesters now. Yep, it was a political ploy that didn’t work. So we wait to see what comes next I guess.
 
40.png
Thekla:
No allegations? Just go read the court testimony…

"
Click to expand...
I thought you said we needed an investigaion to see what is being masked at GITMO. Then you quote testimony that prisioners are being force fed. Since the military has alreay acknowledged that this is being done what is it that needs to be invetigated? Or do you think the militray and the lawyer involved are both lying about the force feeding being done?
 
Thekla said:
“fighting against US troops”
Click to expand...

Don’t you mean “fighting against US troops, not wearing a uniform, generally hiding amongst the civilian population”? Once the war in Afghanistan is over, and they are no longer a threat, they will either be given a trial or set loose. Prove to me before when we tried spies right away during a war.
 
Semper Fi:
Don’t you mean “fighting against US troops, not wearing a uniform, generally hiding amongst the civilian population”? Once the war in Afghanistan is over, and they are no longer a threat, they will either be given a trial or set loose. Prove to me before when we tried spies right away during a war.
Click to expand...
Interesting(but not suprising) that many of those released ended up trying to kill Americans again.
 
40.png
estesbob:
Interesting(but not suprising) that many of those released ended up trying to kill Americans again.
Click to expand...
Not surprising, no. After being incarcerated without trial for so long, it is hardly unexpected that they may not be big fans of the USA. If they really were terrorists, they should have been tried and locked up. If they weren’t, it was stupid to create more people who detest the USA.

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Not surprising, no. After being incarcerated without trial for so long, it is hardly unexpected that they may not be big fans of the USA. If they really were terrorists, they should have been tried and locked up. If they weren’t, it was stupid to create more people who detest the USA.

Mike
Click to expand...
So let me see-these people were captured while they were trying to kill US troops. When they were set free they returned to trying to kill US troops. Per your bizzare theory its our fualt they are trying to kill our troops since we tried to stop them from killing them in the first place.

Go Figure.
 
40.png
estesbob:
I thought you said we needed an investigaion to see what is being masked at GITMO. Then you quote testimony that prisioners are being force fed. Since the military has alreay acknowledged that this is being done what is it that needs to be investigated? Or do you think the militray and the lawyer involved are both lying about the force feeding being done?
Click to expand...
I said it was sick and that I believed it to be abuse. Then I said that the UN torture expert wanted to go down and speak to the detainees himself, but Rumsfeld said “no.” We knew from the original article that they were being force fed, so I’m not sure what your point is.

"Yousef Al Shehri also said, according to Julia Tarver’s account, that “in front of Guantánamo physicians—including the head of the detainees hospital—the guards took NG tubes from one detainee, and *with no sanitation whatsoever, * re-inserted it into the nose of a different detainee.” The passage continued: “The detainees could see the blood and stomach bile from other detainees remaining on the tubes.”
 
40.png
Thekla:
I said it was sick and that I believed it to be abuse. Then I said that the UN torture expert wanted to go down and speak to the detainees himself, but Rumsfeld said “no.” We knew from the original article that they were being force fed, so I’m not sure what your point is.

."
Click to expand...
Im not sure what you point is.The UN has no authority to investigate GITMO. In fact it the UN decides it wants to get into the torture investigation business the US should be far down their list. How about they start in Iran, China or Syria???
 
40.png
estesbob:
How am I read the above and NOT come to the conclusion you are comparing the military to abortion providers??
Click to expand...
I’ll try this one more time. I was comparing **your euphemism **to a euphemism used by abortion supporters.
 
40.png
gilliam:
… and some of them go on hunger strikes (actually, from what I hear they take turns doing this).
Click to expand...
Is taking turns something like a “rolling hunger strike”?

Seems to me some prominent personality suggested something like a “rolling hunger strike”.
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
I’ll try this one more time. I was comparing **your euphemism **to a euphemism used by abortion supporters.
Click to expand...
Then try picking a different analogy next time. Abortion is to serious an issue to drag, even peirpherally, into a political debate.
 
40.png
estesbob:
Im not sure what you point is.The UN has no authority to investigate GITMO. In fact it the UN decides it wants to get into the torture investigation business the US should be far down their list. How about they start in Iran, China or Syria???
Click to expand...
Again with the UN. There is nothing to say that we couldn’t let them in since their expert on torture asked for a team to visit detainees. But that’s why I said since they are such a problem for you, to pick another organization that could report publicly.

As for investigating torture in the countries you listed, it’s near impossible for the UN to do the on the ground work when they won’t let you in. Kind of like us?
 
40.png
Thekla:
Again with the UN. There is nothing to say that we couldn’t let them in since their expert on torture asked for a team to visit detainees. But that’s why I said since they are such a problem for you, to pick another organization that could report publicly.

As for investigating torture in the countries you listed, it’s near impossible for the UN to do the on the ground work when they won’t let you in. Kind of like us?
Click to expand...
The Red Cross is let into the facility and has made some changes to the way things are done there.
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
The Red Cross is let into the facility and has made some changes to the way things are done there.
Click to expand...
We’ve been over the Red Cross on this thread. They cannot report publicly, but the UN torture expert could. That’s why I said if the UN is such a problem, pick another organization that can make its report public.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top