davad70

Join Date 03/2001

To Feed, or Not to Feed

Let them die?

External Link

A Federal Court Judge listened to testimony yesterday from Mohammed Bawazir, regarding him being force fed to keep him alive at Guantanamo Bay.

Bawazir, who has been imprisoned since 2002, not only claims that this process was so painful that it made him give up on his hunger strike, but that the act of strapping him to a chair for hours is inhumane.

This is the first case to be heard that would test the new "Detainee Treatment Act" that was recently passed.

Officials at Guantanamo began strapping Bawazir to a chair and feeding him through a nasal tube to keep him alive starting on January 11th.

I don't really know how I feel about this issue. I don't necessarily consider force feeding him or strapping him to a chair to be entirely unreasonable. On the other hand, I say let him die if he wants to die.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

On the other hand, I say let him die if he wants to die.

Agreed.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's all part of the propaganda front in their war effort against us.

If we let them die, then we were heartless and bloodthirsty.

If we force feed them through nasogastric tubes, we are heartless and like to dole out pain.

Nevermind that millions of people get nasogastric tubes inserted every year. Nevermind that patients who get them are rarely sedated. Nevermind that in many paramedic, nursing and medical schools, students are required to practice and be tested on each other. None of that seems to matter.

All that seems to matter is that, if we let a detainee die by their own hand, it's our fault. If we cause even the most miniscule discomfort on them, it's our fault. As long as there are people ready, willing and able to paint us as "little Eichman's", these tactics will continue to work against us.

Why does this seem so far fetched to so many people, even though reality says they are willing to do so much worse in their war against us?

"WHO DARES WINS" Right?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree there is no winning on this subject. I personally think they should charge these men with a crime then we can move on.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree there is no winning on this subject. I personally think they should charge these men with a crime then we can move on.

I agree.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ted nailed it, no matter what we as amereicans do we are wrong. we need to wake up and see how much the world despises us.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Locamama:

I agree there is no winning on this subject. I personally think they should charge these men with a crime then we can move on.

Well, that's part of the catch 22 also. If we classify terrorist activities (and those who stand accused of participating in them) as "crimes" then we have to afford terrorists all the constitutional rights of criminal suspects. If we classify them as prisoners of war, then we can't try them for crimes.

The propaganda part of the war being fought agaisnt us uses every weapon at their disposal. Our sense of fairplay and constitutional rights is one of them. The question we need to ask ourselves isn't "should we let them starve or should we force feed them", it is "should we be playing along with the propaganda war in the first place?"

It's ironic, if the press reports anything positive about the war on terror, there are Americans who accuse them of cooperating with Prs. Bush's propaganda, but the same people have absolutely no problem with the press doing the same thing for the terrorist's propaganda war.

To me, whichever side of the propaganda war a person supports, goes a long way to show what side of the war they support in general.

Now, it is possible to not take either side in the propaganda war, but that would require ignoring the rhetoric of both sides and looking at the facts on the ground. The fact that it is very difficult to do is why propaganda is so important in war.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If we let them die, then we were heartless and bloodthirsty. If we force feed them through nasogastric tubes, we are heartless and like to dole out pain.

Yup, that's exactly the tactic. The german governement was confronted with the same dilemma in the 1970s when imprissioned RAF terrorists went into hunger strike. And no matter what they did, it was used as propaganda. There really isn't an easy way out.

we need to wake up and see how much the world despises us.

Tsts. Not the whole world. Just parts of it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I say put them on trial and hang those who are terrorists. Guantanamo is giving me the impression that the US is soft on terrorism. Let's have a conclusion here.

Successfully updated karma reason!

These guys pull all sorts of stupid (and dangerous) stunts, and our military forces are expected to protect them from themselves.

Let him protest himself to death. If the hunger strike was so important to him, he wouldn't have given up because of discomfort. He would have continued to not eat and endured the feeding tube, and stuck to his message. Even if it meant that he wouldn't be an immediate martyr, wasting away.

I'm really sick of the US bending over backward to make things fair and kind for the enemy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Guantanamo is giving me the impression that the US is soft on terrorism. Let's have a conclusion here.

You just gave the best argument I have yet heard for closing Gitmo.

Successfully updated karma reason!

To Feed, or Not to Feed

Which one of the 2 is cheaper?

I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of us. I am so tired of hearing this old story about the rest of the world hates us, fine hate us then, big deal. People will always hate one another just because. We should just do what we gotta do and screw everyone else. In the end money talks and BS walks. The rest of the world may hate us, but my money tells me otherwise.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Which one of the 2 is cheaper?

They eat better than most of us do, I promise.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Guantanamo is giving me the impression that the US is soft on terrorism. Let's have a conclusion here.

You just gave the best argument I have yet heard for closing Gitmo.

It wouldn't be giving ANY impression at all if the press wasn't so eager to paint the U.S. in a negative light.

We need to ask ourselves, why did this story make the news anyway?

Successfully updated karma reason!

It wouldn't be giving ANY impression at all if the press wasn't so eager to paint the U.S. in a negative light.

Hawaii National Guard just sent some troops over there to do media stuff and try to correct or improve the message Americans hear about Gitmo.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Let him die.

Successfully updated karma reason!

We need to ask ourselves, why did this story make the news anyway?

You really think this is a non-story?

The fact that it's one of the first that will put the detainee treatment act to the test makes it fairly newsworthy in my book. It's not like it's a major front page story in the papers and leading the news broadcasts. The detainee treatment act was a major story, therefore this should be covered.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

On the other hand, I say let him die if he wants to die.

if i were one of the 'detainees'* who was presented and sold as an al quaida terrorist to the coalition by an afghan warlord and subsequently subjected to life in gitmo for 3.5 years, i'd probably been hoping for death for a while now.

what would really push me over the edge would be learning abdullah mehsud had been released 2 years ago and transported back to afghanistan (he's pakistani but had a fake id for chrissakes! where he promptly kidnapped a couple chinese engineers in waziristan before blowing up a hotel in islamabad).

one can only wonder if someone mighta recognized him had he been given an open trial.

* the reason i emphasized the word detainee is because i'm one of perhaps hundreds of thousands of americans who's had a line of crap forcefed to him by police officers. for those of you who haven't had the pleasure yet, lemme provide a preview: 'no sir, you cannot continue to freely go about your business and no i will not return your driver's license to you at this time. no, you aren't under arrest. you're being detained.' it's a bullshit euphemism used to mask a quasi-legal conceit.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Davad:

You really think this is a non-story?The fact that it's one of the first that will put the detainee treatment act to the test makes it fairly newsworthy in my book. It's not like it's a major front page story in the papers and leading the news broadcasts. The detainee treatment act was a major story, therefore this should be covered.

There are several "hunger strikes" going on in several prisons around the country. I have treated some of the inmates myself. They NEVER make the news. So what is gained from this one making the news?

Another question to ask ourselves about Gitmo in general is, why does the press insist on using pics of the old "dog run" style prison, instead of the newer, state-of-the-art facility on Gitmo? Also, why is it that the press keeps releasing older news items and implying they are new situtations?

Hunger strikes are Not New, nor are they News.

But anything to make the U.S. look bad is enough to keep the ghouls in the press salivating.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I already explained why I think this is "fairly" newsworthy, as opposed to the apparent multitude of hunger strikes going on around the country.

The fact that it's one of the first that will put the detainee treatment act to the test makes it fairly newsworthy in my book. It's not like it's a major front page story in the papers and leading the news broadcasts. The detainee treatment act was a major story, therefore this should be covered.

To me, the crux of this particular story are the legal ramifications;

WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Thursday questioned the government's treatment of a detainee at Guantanamo Bay who says he underwent forced feedings so painful that he gave up his hunger strike.

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler is considering whether to prohibit the forced-feeding practice in the case of Mohammed Bawazir, who has been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay since the spring of 2002.

The case marks the first time a court has heard arguments on a new law, the Detainee Treatment Act, which outlaws torture of prisoners in the war on terror while sharply curtailing the access detainees have to federal courts.

Lawyers for Bawazir say the new law does not affect detainees who had lawsuits pending at the time it was signed, while the Justice Department argued that the curtailment does cover pending lawsuits.

The Supreme Court and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hear arguments on different aspects of the new law, which President Bush signed Dec. 30.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Ted nailed it, no matter what we as amereicans do we are wrong. we need to wake up and see how much the world despises us.

MM the world does not hate americans, we may disagree sometimes, but I would have to say on the whole people of the US are probably not different to the rest of us, just going about our business trying to make ends meet and maybe enjoy ourselves on the way, and I am sure most of us would pretty much accept this as being the real truth.

As for Guntanimo Bay well that's another story, however you are in a no win situation.

Successfully updated karma reason!