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

[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.