force feedings at Gitmo

[drewkitty]

My Friends List will fall into three categories if I write what I think about the force feedings at Gitmo.

1) Humanists: "Ewww . . . they do that?!?!? Shove tubes down people's noses daily for years to force them to stay alive? How can I complain about this?"

2) Academics: "You know, that's an interesting psychwar technique. Especially when the former commandant at Gitmo had it done to himself just to prove that it's really a medical intervention and not torture. When doctors participate in forced feeding, are they within the bounds of the profession?"

3) Asshats: "Terrorists deserve anything that's done to them, what's the big deal? Some of the 'strikers' even complain if their force feedings are delayed."

I don't want to gross out my friends who are human beings. I don't really want to get into an academic discussion of the details of forced gastric feeding and its implications for liberty. I'm tired of providing a forum for asshats to display their asshattery.

I'm just going to point out one thing.

Force feeding is a technique borrowed from the American prison system.

Think about it!

Comments

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

I've had NG tubes. Even when you request the damn things (I had to drink a lot of contrast fluid prior to a CT scan. ReadyCat, the stuff used by Stanford, is vile and I could not swallow it. I asked for the tube to get it all down) having one inserted is uncomfortable at best.

So I'm really ambivlient about this. On one hand, I don't like the idea of letting people become martyrs. On the other hand, it is an invasive medical procedure.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I say we should only force-feed them if the mixture contains pork :)

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Wait ... you're seeing it as a bad thing that we aren't just letting hunger strikers die?

Heck, I think we should just let them die, and only in part because it would give you les to complain about!

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

I felt confident that you would reply, and that your reply would self-select into the category I expected. Glad to see that once again, you did not disappoint.

Yes, it's a good move from several directions to go ahead and use NG tubes to prevent suicide in custody, as bradhicks points out. No, I don't think we should use pork. No, I don't think we should just let them kill themselves.

I don't pretend to have the answers to all of life's moral dilemmas. I do know that this particular dilemma is created by the conditions we choose to employ at Gitmo.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I felt confident that you would reply, and that your reply would self-select into the category I expected.

Which one? Force-feed them? Let them die? Grant them Holy Islamic Martyrdom?

Anyone who is hunger-striking is obviously a committed Islamicist, so the "innocent captive" argument does not apply here.

I do know that this particular dilemma is created by the conditions we choose to employ at Gitmo.

What, "holding illegal combatants prisoner in relative comfort?" What would you propose instead, whips and the rack?

What positive proposal do you have?

And why the heck should we care if they hunger-strike? Hunger strikes are the adult equivalent of a "tantrum," and should be met not with respect but with derision for the hunger-strikers and their "cause."

[catsidhe.livejournal.com]

Anyone who is hunger-striking is obviously a committed Islamicist

Given that you are obviously omniscient, may I ask where Osama is hiding? Oh, wait, you are only like the Shadow, Knowing the Evil That Lurks in the Hearts of Men? Then you should go top Gitmo RIGHT NOW, so that you can instantly tell who is guilty and can be executed post haste, and which ones are actually innocent and can be let go, only half a decade after they were sold to US forces by what is now again the biggest source of heroin in the world, otherwise known as the 'Northern Alliance'.
Unless, of course, your selection criteria is 'We are so Holy and Good that anyone suspected of being a Terrist must be a Terrist, because we would not allow an innocent to be suspected.'

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Anyone who is hunger-striking is obviously a committed Islamicist ...

Given that you are obviously omniscient, may I ask where Osama is hiding?

That conclusion (anyone who is hunger-striking is obviously a committed Islamicist) does not require "omniscience" -- only normal human inteligence.

Can you give another plausible reason why any of the Git'mo detainees would go to the trouble and pain of a hunger-strike, if they were not committed Islamicists?

Failure to do so will be taken as your tacit admission of my point.

[catsidhe.livejournal.com]

Failure to do so will be taken as your tacit admission of my point.

Or, alternatively, evidence that SixApart needs to get more redundant disk farms... But anyway, let us play your game:

Can you give another plausible reason why any of the Git'mo detainees would go to the trouble and pain of a hunger-strike, if they were not committed Islamicists?

Why, yes I can, thank you for asking!

For a start, while imprisoned IRA terrorists have used this technique, it goes back historically over two thousand years in Irish history. It was a method to gain redress of a grievance to go and sit on the doorstep of the person who has wronged you and publicly fast. The public opprobrium would pressure that person to resolve your problem.

This technique was also used by Gandhi and his followers in India against the British.

But the above just goes to demonstrate that the Hunger Strike is neither necessarily a Muslim nor a necessarily terrorist thing. As for the specific circumstances...

You posit that these people are Hunger-striking because they are vicious terrorists who hate America. (Well, if they didn't hate America when they were captured/kidnapped, they certainly do now, whether or not they were terrorists...)
Let's look at it the other way. Assume, for a moment, that some, or even all, of these people are actually innocent. They have been kidnapped, sometimes from their homes, sometimes from random countries. They have been shipped to third countries to be tortured on behalf of the US, sometimes (allegedly) by US soldiers and operatives. They have then eventually been shipped to a prison, only they are not being held under either military nor civilian law, indeed, they are being held entirely illegally as the courts of the nation which is holding them have decided repeatedly. They cannot be told what they are to be charged with, as the laws under which they to be charged, indeed, the entire legal system under which they will be charged, doesn't exist yet. They are forbidden from knowing what, if any, evidence is used against them. They do not know if, let alone when they will be charged, nor do they know when or if they will be released.

I don't give a fuck who you are, subjected to that sort of treatment, a hunger strike looks liek a calm and civilised response. Unless you, in that situation, would just sit back for an unspecified, indefinitely prolonged time, being a good little prisoner, yessir nosir threebagsfullsir thankyousir, may I have another. I suspect your human pride would either not allow you to, or break. Why should this not apply to these people as well?


Unless, of course, the fact that they are in Gitmo is of itself proof that they deserve to be in Gitmo and are therefore guilty by definition. (AKA the ‘God would not allow an innocent to be suspected of witchcraft, therefore if they are accused of being a witch then they are a witch QED’ argument for the prosecution.) I really don't see how you can justify your position from any other presumption.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

You actually have a point regarding the possiblity of innocent detainees carrying out hunger-strikes.

Mind you, I still think that the vast majority of the detainees, including those carrying out the hunger-strikes, are in fact guilty.

But I will concede that you have a point.

[bradhicks.livejournal.com]

There's not much to think about, this is long-established international practice. Not only is it used to prevent suicide by hunger strike in US prisons, it's been used by governments all around the world, from Britain to China, ever since the IRA proved what an effective propaganda weapon it was to have your members starve to death while in captivity.

I mean honestly, the base commander didn't even need to do that publicity stunt. All he had to do was remain calm and say, "I am legally required to try to prevent suicides."

[taral.livejournal.com]

I support the right to die. So I'm not a fan of force feeding.

[lironess.livejournal.com]

I suppose we should be grateful that they are not getting the tubes installed with surgery.....although I am not sure which would be worse.

No 57 virgins for them I guess....

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I say feed `em ham and cheese, and then after they've digested it let them know what they just ate. Then laugh at them, a lot. Bring in tour-groups of scantily clad women to laugh at them. And flush Korans down toilets. Can't forget that.

[lironess.livejournal.com]

WELL.......I talked to some POWS when I worked at the veterans service office. I know that there are lots worse things that can be done. They did not tell me much, but enough....

Then there is the "stooping to their level", or "one upmanship", and all of that crap.

I have very mixed feelings about this, so I try to think mostly of kittens....which is pretty easy right now as I still have three in my house. Yay kittens!

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I would have absolutely no problem saying this to a group of Muslims face to face, because the Muslims would either be anti-terrorist, in which case they would agree; or pro-terrorist, in which case they would be fair game.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

SNAP!

(the sound of the trap closing on you)

You -- arguing that I am wrong to despise Muslims, have just argued that I would not dare to say it to their faces. Now, why do you assume that there might be something dangerous in saying it to their faces, or that I might not survive doing so?

Well, obviously, the reason would be that they were a bunch of insanely violent terrorist types, since if they were reasonable people, they would instead counter my words with words of their own, rather than with violence (*).

As I've been saying all along.

Thank you for playing. :D

FYI, I've faced down pro-IRA people, and I have far more respect for the Irish than I do for the Muslims. In reality, I've found that if you are brave, people attack you a lot less than you might imagine.

===
(*) It's possible that what you meant was that we should respect the Muslims especially because they are violent and dangerous. I'm always amazed at this sort of cowardice.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

You're not getting it. The conversation we just had was essentially:

ME: Bill is unreasonably violent, hence we should not respect him.

YOU: Oh yeah! I dare you to say that to Bill's face! He'll punch ya in the snoot!

In that conversation, you just essentially argued my point.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Unless you actually are arguing "We should respect the unreasonably violent because they are unreasonably violent," in which case I have nothing to reply save that a coward dies a thousand times, a brave man only once.

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Enjoying trolldom much?

Evil American Prison System - Think About It!

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I'm just going to point out one thing.

Force feeding is a technique borrowed from the American prison system.

Think about it!

Also, the inmates are behind bars.

Bars are a technique borrowed from the American prison system.

Think about it!

And they are geographically limited.

Not letting people go where they want to is a technique borrowed from the American prison system.

Think about it!

Re: Evil American Prison System - Think About It!

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

No evidence of thought here, as indicated by the thread above. Thank you and move on.

Re: Evil American Prison System - Think About It!

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

You said "force feeding is a technique borrowed from the American prison system." What "evidence of thought" was there in that?

In fact, what was your point? Force feeding of prisoners who refuse to eat is standard practice in any halfway-humane prison system, since the alternative is simply to let the prisoners die! Are you arguing that we should, instead, let the hunger-striking detainees die?

Re: Evil American Prison System - Think About It!

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

My point is that the everyday operation of the American prison system is cruel and inhumane. Gitmo should not surprise people so much. In fact, the only major additional cruelty imposed, above that of the ultramax regime itself, is the denial of access to the American justice system. This destroys hope and corrodes what we used to call basic rights, such as habeas corpus and the right to confront one's accuser.

I'd be comfortable with letting the prisoners die, if they felt so strongly about it. However, under current law, this would be the same as allowing suicide . . . thus, we end up with force-feeding, an ugly half-solution to an uglier problem.

Drewkitty's Fallacy and Mistakes

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Ah, now I see your reasoning, and the fallacy you fell victim to is the one I expected.

I do not know its formal name but a common term for it is "guilt by association." It is a subset of "overgeneralization."

Your implicit syllogism is:

1) The American prison system is cruel and inhumane
2) The American prison system uses force-feeding,

therefore

3) Force-feeding is cruel and inhumane.

I then demonstrated the absurdity by replacing "force-feeding" with other statements that would also be true as part of proposition (2). For instance:

1) The American prison system is cruel and inhumane
2) The American prison system uses mess halls,

therefore

3) Mess halls are cruel and inhumane.

Or even

1) The American prison system is cruel and inhumane
2) The American prison system uses medical care,

therefore

3) Medical care is cruel and inhumane.

It is not valid to conclude that any attribute which applies to the whole of a system applies equally to each part of the system, which is what you were doing.

Now, on the merits of the American penal system. It is quite true (and almost obvious) that it is frequently cruel and inhumane. It is less obvious that this is avoidable, or that the prison systems of other developed countries are run in such a manner as to be less cruel and inhumane. The main problem that I see is the tendencyh of the institutions to be dominated by inmate gangs, and this is not an easy thing to prevent without other measures that might also in practice be "cruel and inhumane."

In fact, the only major additional cruelty imposed, above that of the ultramax regime itself, is the denial of access to the American justice system. This destroys hope and corrodes what we used to call basic rights, such as habeas corpus and the right to confront one's accuser.

These rights have never been possessed by captives taken in war, as you would quite swiftly learn if you read a book on the history of the treatment of prisoners of war. You would be on better legal ground if you attempted to argue that captives taken in countries not being subject to major guerilla attack (and hence not "on the battlefield") deserve some variant of the rights afforded accused criminals, than you are in arguing that captives of war should now be granted the rights of criminal defendents (even though this has never been done before).

I'd be comfortable with letting the prisoners die, if they felt so strongly about it. However, under current law, this would be the same as allowing suicide . . . thus, we end up with force-feeding, an ugly half-solution to an uglier problem.

The "uglier problem" is being generated by the inmates' choice to attempt to starve themselves to death: the solution to this problem would be for them to stop doing this. Shall I take it that you are complaining about the behavior of the inmates, then?

Re:

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

>> as you would quite swiftly learn if you read a book on the history of the treatment of prisoners of war

This is exactly my point. POWs and civilians under enemy control are protected by the Geneva Conventions. Their guilt or innocence is not generally in question -- therefore the conditions of their confinement are spelled out, until such time as they lose (via a trial, with legal safeguards) their POW or civilian status and thereby become criminals.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/genevaconventions

A criminal is not protected by Geneva, but has already been adjudicated guitly by a competent court of law. Therefore, it is appropriate to hold a criminal using a "strict regime" prison that would be inappropriate for holding prisoners of war, or persons whose legal status has not been determined.

>> captives of war should now be granted the rights of criminal defendents

Defendants, thank you. It is unnecessary for POWs to be granted the rights of criminal defendants, as they already enjoy the superior status of POWs which protects them from demeaning, degrading or humiliating conditions of confinement.

However, persons whose status is in question are granted by the Conventions certain rights of criminal defendants. Quoting from the 4th Geneva: "Accused persons who are prosecuted by the Occupying Power shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand, of the particulars of the charges preferred against them, and shall be brought to trial as rapidly as possible."

Gitmo is the worst of both worlds -- a ultramax prison facility where the persons held are neither treated as POWs or protected persons, nor have the opportunity to challenge their status. That is the "uglier problem" to which suicide attempts through starvation begin to look like a reasonable and moderate response.

>> It is quite true (and almost obvious) that it is frequently cruel and inhumane. It is less obvious that this is avoidable, or that the prison systems of other developed countries are run in such a manner as to be less cruel and inhumane.

The European prison system is run on very different lines.

http://www.uncjin.org/Laws/prisrul.htm

"Most important has been the elevation to the highest priority of the six rules of basic principle which are the bedrock of the whole philosophy and moral code on which the rules rest. These basic principles embody the criteria of humanity, respect for human dignity, social purpose and managerial performance which comprise a coherent and effective basis for the administration of modern prison systems."

It is relatively easy to run a fair and humane correctional system; one starts by treating the inmates with respect and dignity, and using various techniques to induce them to rise to a higher standard of conduct rather than reducing them to the lowest common denominator. Gang violence in prisons is a direct response to a lack of leadership by the prison administration.