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

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.