Political Crossfire Forums

[bigstick61]

It still doesn't make force-feeding a prisoner a constitutional issue. Since GITMO is under the direct jurisdiction of the Federal government, it would only be dependant upon the laws set by Congress for the area, or for the armed forces. In many prisons in the US, force-feeding is done when the prisoner refuses to eat and it begins to affect their health; is see no impropriety in that, nor anything illegal.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Seeing as how my past posts were ignored, I will restate my arguments in one phrase:

Prisoners do not have rights, and with that, they do not have the right to die.
My argument in one phrase:
The government does not have a right to imprison people unless they've done something wrong.

[agentkgb]

bigstick61 wrote: It still doesn't make force-feeding a prisoner a constitutional issue. Since GITMO is under the direct jurisdiction of the Federal government, it would only be dependant upon the laws set by Congress for the area, or for the armed forces. In many prisons in the US, force-feeding is done when the prisoner refuses to eat and it begins to affect their health; is see no impropriety in that, nor anything illegal.
Like the original post said though, a number of groups have deemed force-feeding immoral or illegal. I'm trying to avoid sidetracking this again now that it's come back on topic, but like you said, most of them are not even legally under the government's jurisdiction, so whose rulings matter are, in my opinion, pretty unsure. If the prisoner clearly has serious mental problems and is hunger-striking as a result of that, then force-feeding might be acceptable, but the prisoners at Gitmo don't have such problems so far as I know.
As a side note, the Harper's article pointed out that many of them were not even near death, but the military was force-feeding them anyway.

[The Comrade]

agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Seeing as how my past posts were ignored, I will restate my arguments in one phrase:

Prisoners do not have rights, and with that, they do not have the right to die.
My argument in one phrase:
The government does not have a right to imprison people unless they've done something wrong.

and they have done something wrong.

[agentkgb]

The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Seeing as how my past posts were ignored, I will restate my arguments in one phrase:

Prisoners do not have rights, and with that, they do not have the right to die.
My argument in one phrase:
The government does not have a right to imprison people unless they've done something wrong.

and they have done something wrong.
Yeah, a lot of them were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I still have no reason to believe they've done something wrong unless I'm willing to take Bush's word for it.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Seeing as how my past posts were ignored, I will restate my arguments in one phrase:

Prisoners do not have rights, and with that, they do not have the right to die.
My argument in one phrase:
The government does not have a right to imprison people unless they've done something wrong.

Fortunately, they have done something wrong, but that is not relevant to the issue at hand.

You established this thread about the right of prisoners to die, not the reason people are imprisoned.

This may have been your thread, but I ask you to stay on topic.

[The Comrade]

agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Seeing as how my past posts were ignored, I will restate my arguments in one phrase:

Prisoners do not have rights, and with that, they do not have the right to die.
My argument in one phrase:
The government does not have a right to imprison people unless they've done something wrong.

and they have done something wrong.
Yeah, a lot of them were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I still have no reason to believe they've done something wrong unless I'm willing to take Bush's word for it.

i see.


it's become clear to me that you are anti-fact, anti-common sense, and anti-truth.

[agentkgb]

The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Seeing as how my past posts were ignored, I will restate my arguments in one phrase:

Prisoners do not have rights, and with that, they do not have the right to die.
My argument in one phrase:
The government does not have a right to imprison people unless they've done something wrong.

and they have done something wrong.
Yeah, a lot of them were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I still have no reason to believe they've done something wrong unless I'm willing to take Bush's word for it.

i see.


it's become clear to me that you are anti-fact, anti-common sense, and anti-truth.
I'm just saying that I want more than Bush's word that they did something wrong, I want more than his word that it's the truth. LostSoul is right though so that's it for me on that issue for this thread.

[bigstick61]

Just saying they did something wrong does not make it so. For those who do not legally qualify as POWs, they cannot be detained without charges, and cannot be contained beyond trial without a conviction. They have not been charged with anything, and they certainly have not been convicted of anything. They have the right to a fair and sppedy trial, through due process of law, just like any person. A mere accusation is not enough to deny a man his liberty. There has to be substance to it, with formal charges, and afterwards the person has to be tried, and only after they are convicted if they are, can their life, liberty, or property be taken away. What the government's actions do is set a precedent wich will eventually come to be used on Americans. The government is completely disregarding rule of law.

[LostSoul3412]

bigstick61 wrote: Just saying they did something wrong does not make it so. For those who do not legally qualify as POWs, they cannot be detained without charges, and cannot be contained beyond trial without a conviction. They have not been charged with anything, and they certainly have not been convicted of anything. They have the right to a fair and sppedy trial, through due process of law, just like any person. A mere accusation is not enough to deny a man his liberty. There has to be substance to it, with formal charges, and afterwards the person has to be tried, and only after they are convicted if they are, can their life, liberty, or property be taken away. What the government's actions do is set a precedent wich will eventually come to be used on Americans. The government is completely disregarding rule of law.

I understand that, but this isn't the tread to discuss it. The issue was the rights of prisoners, or lack thereof.

[Snake]

Of course I think people on hunger strikes should be force fed. It's an 'inconveinience to them, but they never think of the people that have to pick up their bodies. Inconsiderate pr*cks

[agentkgb]

Kamel wrote: Of course I think people on hunger strikes should be force fed. It's an 'inconveinience to them, but they never think of the people that have to pick up their bodies. Inconsiderate pr*cks
I doubt they're hunger striking to be "inconsiderate." It's a final form of protest.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: I doubt they're hunger striking to be "inconsiderate." It's a final form of protest.

Prisoners don't have the right to protest.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: I doubt they're hunger striking to be "inconsiderate." It's a final form of protest.

Prisoners don't have the right to protest.
I imagine we're just going to go in the same circle again, but I'll ask anyway: why don't prisoners have the right to protest? What gives the government the right to take away people's rights just like that?

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: I imagine we're just going to go in the same circle again, but I'll ask anyway: why don't prisoners have the right to protest? What gives the government the right to take away people's rights just like that?

Because they're prisoners. As such, they have no rights.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: I imagine we're just going to go in the same circle again, but I'll ask anyway: why don't prisoners have the right to protest? What gives the government the right to take away people's rights just like that?

Because they're prisoners. As such, they have no rights.
I'm not sure you really answered my question(s). The fact that they're prisoners doesn't mean tehy can't have rights. It means they don't have freedom of movement, but we regularly (ironically) decry the nations that abuse prisoners (not anymore so much now I guess though). Prisoners aren't sub-human.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: I'm not sure you really answered my question(s). The fact that they're prisoners doesn't mean tehy can't have rights.

Yes it does.

agentkgb wrote: Prisoners aren't sub-human.

Their humanity is not in question; their sovereignty is.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: I'm not sure you really answered my question(s). The fact that they're prisoners doesn't mean tehy can't have rights.

Yes it does.
Why?

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: Why?

Because they're prisoners.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: Why?

Because they're prisoners.
They don't have their rights because they're prisoners, and prisoners don't have rights because they're prisoners? Could you explain that? It's like saying Bush is the greatest president ever because he's Bush.