the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have never been charged with a crime
Though I'm against force feeding the prisoners in Guantanamo and the institution itself, most people in the Western world will have a feeding tube put through their nose at some point in their life. I don't think the procedure is anywhere near this uncomfortable nor do I believe that these prisoners are forcibly made to go through what is presented for 4 hours a day. This seems like a load of BS.
Well, I can make some phone calls and we'll see how quickly you allow people to forcibly insert a feeding tube through your nostril and down past your throat when all you want to do is just die because you've been there for over five years with no trial and your life has been and endless unjustified and interminable imprisonment for half a decade or more.
I have pretty high requirements for suicide, and I like to think that I would hold out... But I really don't know. A week is a long time to be held without reason or contact with the outside world.
But 260 weeks?
There are children that were born at the beginning of some of the inmates imprisonment. Some of those children are in fourth grade. There's a statistical guarantee that some of those inmates have children, and may not have seen them or anyone they know for close to a decade.
I think I might want to die in that situation. I think I might want to make keeping me alive as difficult a process as possible. I think I would want them to get so frustrated that they just let me die.
WHO WANTS DESSERT
Welp, pack it up everybody! Konversekid has a gut feeling, that totally trumps all the actual medical personnel who have been protesting this.
would you say most of these people in the western world would be drugged before being intubated? or does surgeons all putting a transplant patient in a headlock sound about right
to be fair this wouldn't be one of the top 3 most traumatic things to ever happen to you simply because of the tube.
I've had it done as part of a medical prodecure. They inserted the tube while I was under, and it was still awful. I can't imagine being forced to do it against my strong moral objections. That's absolutely vile.
I can't even rate this.
Someone who is eighty years old has been alive long enough to witness everything from Japanese detention camps, to Vietnam, to this.
Bush wasn't the worst president.
He was just a president.
We've had plenty that decided that personal liberties were at the whim of the government.
Fuck Everything 2016!
WHO WANTS DESSERT
Haha, wow, you just jumped right into the Bush apologism headfirst.
I was born in 1978, which means I am just barely old enough to have been alive under a president who had any amount of integrity, inffectual or not. Fuck everything since Reagan.
This "integrity" you speak of ... does it include baiting the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan?
There are plenty of reasons to be mad at Obama, but when it comes to Guantanamo Bay, he's not where the bottleneck lies:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/30/o bama-just-gave-a-powerful-speech-about-the-need-to-close-gitmo-so- why-hasnt-he/
Carter was as compromised a President as the rest, if East Timor means anything.
I'm still trying to figure out which sitting President wasn't present and/or publicly silent on a given atrocity du'jour.
Harrison maybe, but he got in plenty of murder as Governor of the Indiana Territory.
I didn't know about that Afghanistan thing, but I'm not surprised to be honest. I just assume doing horrible things is part of the job description of President, but I really think Reagan marks (and holds a LOT of responsibility for) the beginning of a particularly dark period in US history.
I agree that blaming Obama for Guantanamo still being around doesn't make much sense, though. My biggest complaints with him are mostly about domestic spying and suveillance, and that stuff is as much a product of technology as anything, I think the same things would be going on no matter who was in office but Obama certainly does seem to be in full support of it all.
Snarf you, OZ, Reagan was our best president because he made a movie with a monkry.
And yeah, Carter also started arming the Mujahadeen so he deserves some blame for that, too, but compared to Reagan he's still a saint, especially in terms of domestic policy.
US foreign policy has been fucked since day one.
OZ, I think you may find that what's principled / corrupt has much to do with how far back into history it is -- front page news always looks worse than what happened ten years ago. I know people who are so pissed at Obama over drone strikes that they wish Clinton were back in office. Seriously ... ? Compare the death toll in drone strikes (thousands, and the great majority of them terrorists / militants even by Pakistan's count) to the death toll in sanctions in Iraq (hundreds of thousands, 99% of whom were civilians) and there's no way Clinton is anything but a monster. Or Kosovo, where Clinton managed to turn (what could have been) a crackdown on civilian massacres into a big grab for Yugoslavia's resources ... it's really hard to bitch about Libya if Clinton is your model for principled, defensible military action.
I'm well aware of that. It doesn't change my opinion of Reagan and post-Reagan politics one bit.
Clinton was OK, even though he did a lot of the deregulating that ultimately snowballed into the current economic disaster.
|Chocolate Jesus |
I feel bad for the guys in Cuba getting this treatment, but I'm really relishing this most recent Mos Def performance.
Okay, so Mos played this up-ish (it at least would have had more impact if it were done in one take, or at least sans out of focus multi angle shots), but that tube insertion does not look at all pleasant.
not really, a lot of medical procedures are some of the most
traumatic things that will ever happen to you no matter how
comfortable they try to make you in a hospital, with anesthetics
and at your own pace.
do you think Quaid would want to pull another beacon out of his
nose? and that was fake!
|That guy |
I'm not a fan of Guantanamo, and I think torture may be worse than murder, but I wonder how the hell any government is supposed to proceed in the face of terrorism and asymmetric warfare. Every option sucks. Every misstep has horrible consequences. [It doesn't help that some of the missteps of the W. administration were stupid and evil at the same time].
Also, fuck Mos Def. Motherfucker is radical as hell.
Binro the Heretic
Maybe we should stop fighting them with guns, bombs and torture since those are shown to be ineffective?
lets fight religious radicals with hugs guys
You should definitely keep playing up the 'That Guy' gimmick, you're pretty good at being that guy.
Different solutions for different problems, and you do your best to not create new problems in the process. We honestly would do better throwing Hostess Fruit Pies at the general citizenry of the Middle East than invading or sanctioning, which harm innocent people by an overwhelming majority.
Guantanamo Bay creates new problems while solving none, and additionally being a stain on everything the US is supposed to stand for.
Correction, theSnake. Fight religious radicals EXCEPT CHRISTIANS with hugs.
Christians, we should just drag those fuckers into the street and shoot them.
We'll figure out how to handle terrorism eventually, we've spent the last decade making sure we'll have more than enough practice over the next two or three.
Also, I agree that Mos Def is rad as hell.
This is America. We will cold bloodedly murder every one of them, and then we will cold bloodedly murder everyone who says we didn't cold bloodedly murder them for peace and freedom. Once that is history, we will teach this cold blooded murder to our children in schools/churches/tv/internet/videogames until they can repeat the process with their neighbors.
You all will agree with this process or die.
Binro the Heretic
Seriously, That guy? Are you implying that just because we don't know what works yet, we shouldn't stop doing the stuff we know IS NOT working?
"Shoving this pine cone up my nose is doing nothing to help me find a job, but until someone suggests an alternative, I'm just going to keep at it."
Anyway, what we have over there is a situation somewhat similar to the one we had here in the Southern states during prior to the civil rights movement.
You have an entrenched group of people in power backed by a minority of psychotic assholes willing to do violence to get their way. Some of them really believe what they are doing is the "right" thing but most just enjoy being in authority.
You have a majority of people unaffected by the assholes who don't care what happens to the assholes or their victims as long as their own lives aren't affected too much.
You have a minority of people who care, but hardly any of them are willing to commit violence to change things and even fewer would rick the safety of themselves or their loved ones, anyway.
You don't want to carpet-bomb the place just to get a few assholes. You'll kill far too many innocent people and the survivors are likely to become assholes even if they weren't predisposed to do so before. Also, it would make people think you're an asshole because you were totally an asshole to do it.
Of course, the situation isn't entirely the same. We handled the South by passing and enforcing Federal laws that made it a lot harder for states to shit on certain people. We both shamed and touched the hearts of the silent majority until they saw for themselves the damage they were allowing to happen and were moved to do something about it. We protected the vocal minority from being threatened or killed for trying to change things. Eventually, the assholes were pushed out of power and fewer people wanted to be assholes.
The important thing to note, here, is that WE did this within OUR own country. Maybe, just maybe, you have to accept the fact there's fuck-all WE can do in a country that belongs to THEM. Maybe we can't fight the terrorists abroad. Maybe we just have to focus on finding and stopping them here.
The problems of international law and justice, when combined with terrorism and the inability to make terrorism a nation vs. nation conflict makes dealing with suspected terrorists a horribly problematic issue.
I do not mean by this that I support Guantanamo or torture. I am not implying that. If I could choose right now that the US never accidentally tortures an innocent person and I am less safe, I would take that choice without hesitation. And I think the only way to ensure that is to not torture at all. This is why I'm against the death penalty as well, because it's bound to err, while new information of innocence could come to light too late.
[If it's an armchair philosophy question where in order to save my own life from certain attack, the US govt. has to torture someone who is a known terrorist, of course I'd want to live.]
I won't say I disapprove of accidental deaths of civilians in war or military action if it makes me safer. I do not believe that the duty to not accidentally kill is the same as the duty to not deliberately torture. At some point I'm interested in what works and keeps me safer, not perfectly clean hands. I'm not a Jain.
I am wondering how the hell we're supposed to have clean hands, and pursue a practical strategy, and not misstep.
I am not saying Guantanamo is a practical strategy.
Practical pursuits don't make hideous wrongs right, and impractical hideous wrongs are worse still. But I am not sure how the hell jurisprudence is supposed to work, or should work, in an international terrorism situation. We probably wound ourselves into this despicable practice because every way of proceeding is shit. I am not especially interested in international law-due process ideas of 'convicting terrorists' because I don't think they're especially possible, and I don't believe in subjecting our safety to laws that we don't have control over.
At some point, I'm interested in what's good for me. In this particular case, my concerns about Guantanamo are two:
1) Is anyone there innocent, or innocent enough not to be subjected to this? I would assume yes.
2) Is a spectacle like Guantanamo the best way of proceeding in our national interests? I would assume no.
Rights vs. rights is problematic as hell, and it's the only real test of rights. My stance is that rights don't exist in any robust metaphysical way, but they stem from practices. I respect others rights because of reciprocity, not metaphysics. I reciprocate because I choose to and it's how I'm wired up, not because Santa Claus is watching.
I don't think we owe much to the suspected terrorists in Guantanamo, but we do owe them that they shouldn't be tortured because any one of them might be innocent, and I think torture is worse than killing. As for force feeding being torture, I don't know. As for killing suspected terrorists, please do.
I am not for capital punishment within a society because of corruption and error. In theory I don't know or care.
I am not for torture in anything but a highly hypothetical situation, which means in practice I'm against it.
I am for killing suspected terrorists, with some burden of proof, but not necessarily beyond a shadow of a doubt.
If a West vs. Middle East world war 3 is in the cards, it's not going to be averted because a few less suspected terrorists were killed. It'll be a combination of economics and ideologies on both sides. Everything else is a fart in the wind. I am not especially interested in fine-tooth-comb liberal values when in conflict with societies that value little of that. We ought to be able to apply those values in all times and places, but we can't. [I'm not using liberal as a pejorative here, FOX NEWS-style]
By the way, if Mos Def tried to starve himself to death in a regular prison or an asylum, what would happen?
|Binro the Heretic |
Even presuming these guys were part of some dangerous groups that may have posed some threat to America, we've had them for over five years. Do they really still have any intelligence that would be of use to us? Would they still be a threat if we let them go?
We're just supposed to take the word of the people holding them prisoner and running tubes down their throats against their will? Who the fuck are they, really?
Allowing this shit to continue is one of the biggest ways Obama has let me down.
|Robin Kestrel |
I want to see this procedure repeatedly applied to Megyn Kelly and broadcast on all channels during prime time.
The warm up act should be John Yoo getting water-boarded.
Hey now! I have a couple friends who worked as guards at Gitmo. They don't ALWAYS feed prisoners like this. Sometimes, they give them cheeseburgers from McDonalds. No shit! Like, this one terrorist was really into Big Macs and Adam Sandler movies, so he'd snitch on his friends, and the interrogators would let him chill out in the torture room, watching Billy Madison and getting his munch on. It all depends on the person, and the level of cooperation they offer.
And this kind of procedure is generally reserved for inmates on hunger strikes. The same sort of thing happens in "normal" prisons and mental health facilities all the goshdern time. It's as American as suspending habeas corpus in times when habeas corpus is inconvenient to the executive branch!
Maybe if social undesirables would stop going all Gandhi and shit, our benevolent and progressive State wouldn't have to strap them down and make 'em eat?
My god, they tortured him slow-acting poison and videos that would emotionally and psychologically devastate anyone beyond hope of recovery. You should contact the ACLU or OMCT or something right away.
Before you jump to any conclusions about the Adam Sandler, you know how some cultures like eating bugs, and others are cool with ritual cannibalism? It's kind of like that with Arabs and Adam Sandler. They love watching rich Jews make fools of themselves!
In all seriousness, my buddies said it was the most depressing job they'd ever had. The fishing is nice down there, though.
I get the impression that Adam Sandler is a very nice person.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|