Political Crossfire Forums

[agentkgb]

I'm not sure this is in the right forum, but this was my best guess, if it's the wrong place I'm sorry in advance.
When Gitmo inmates go on a hunger strike, they're force-fed. According to an article in Harper's, they're often force-fed before their life is even in danger. In 2000 a US District Court judge ruled that a federal prisoner could not be force-fed, saying that “I just don't think the government has put forward any kind of compelling interest that would allow me to override a person's last, ultimate means of protesting government," and in 1975 members of the World Medical Association wrote a ban on force-feeding, which was later endorsed by the American Medical Association.
Prisoners, especially those without access to trial, don't really have a way to protest what's being done beyond hunger strikes. I guess this is essentially a right-to-die issue but I'm hoping this thread stays on the topic of force-feeding (unlikley to happen, but I can hope). I'm against force-feeding unless it's some anorexic twelve-year-old who's going to die if she doesn't get calories or something like that.

[The Comrade]

yes they should be force fed.

do you even know how bad the left would spin the death of gitmo detainees? the fact that it was technically suicide wouldn't even matter.


i think has more to do with covering our asses then saving the prisoners.


in other circumstances, i don't think people should be force fed.

if someone wants to be stupid enough to starve themselves to protest the government then let them.

or better yet they should just self-immolate.

[agentkgb]

The Comrade wrote: yes they should be force fed.

do you even know how bad the left would spin the death of gitmo detainees? the fact that it was technically suicide wouldn't even matter.


i think has more to do with covering our asses then saving the prisoners.
:? You're saying that the prisoners should be force-fed so that republicans can win elections? So that the world will have a better view of the US? That seems incredibly wrong. I hope I misunderstood.

[The Comrade]

agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: yes they should be force fed.

do you even know how bad the left would spin the death of gitmo detainees? the fact that it was technically suicide wouldn't even matter.


i think has more to do with covering our asses then saving the prisoners.
:? You're saying that the prisoners should be force-fed so that republicans can win elections? So that the world will have a better view of the US? That seems incredibly wrong. I hope I misunderstood.



gitmo is already considered illegal and terrible and blah blah blah.


what do you think is going to happen when the prisoners there start dying off?



america has somewhat of an image left. let's not destroy what's left.

[agentkgb]

The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: yes they should be force fed.

do you even know how bad the left would spin the death of gitmo detainees? the fact that it was technically suicide wouldn't even matter.


i think has more to do with covering our asses then saving the prisoners.
:? You're saying that the prisoners should be force-fed so that republicans can win elections? So that the world will have a better view of the US? That seems incredibly wrong. I hope I misunderstood.



gitmo is already considered illegal and terrible and blah blah blah.


what do you think is going to happen when the prisoners there start dying off? People might wonder what the heII we're doing keeping them in prison without charges.
The Comrade wrote: america has somewhat of an image left. let's not destroy what's left. Maybe we should charge them then and let them have a trial. I don't see how it could be right to do something just to preserve our image.

[The Comrade]

agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: yes they should be force fed.

do you even know how bad the left would spin the death of gitmo detainees? the fact that it was technically suicide wouldn't even matter.


i think has more to do with covering our asses then saving the prisoners.
:? You're saying that the prisoners should be force-fed so that republicans can win elections? So that the world will have a better view of the US? That seems incredibly wrong. I hope I misunderstood.



gitmo is already considered illegal and terrible and blah blah blah.


what do you think is going to happen when the prisoners there start dying off? People might wonder what the heII we're doing keeping them in prison without charges.
The Comrade wrote: america has somewhat of an image left. let's not destroy what's left. Maybe we should charge them then and let them have a trial. I don't see how it could be right to do something just to preserve our image.


they're prisoners of war. they can be held indeffinatly if the government so chooses.


so you're saying we should let them starve to death?

[agentkgb]

The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: The Comrade wrote: yes they should be force fed.

do you even know how bad the left would spin the death of gitmo detainees? the fact that it was technically suicide wouldn't even matter.


i think has more to do with covering our asses then saving the prisoners.
:? You're saying that the prisoners should be force-fed so that republicans can win elections? So that the world will have a better view of the US? That seems incredibly wrong. I hope I misunderstood.



gitmo is already considered illegal and terrible and blah blah blah.


what do you think is going to happen when the prisoners there start dying off? People might wonder what the heII we're doing keeping them in prison without charges.
The Comrade wrote: america has somewhat of an image left. let's not destroy what's left. Maybe we should charge them then and let them have a trial. I don't see how it could be right to do something just to preserve our image.


they're prisoners of war. they can be held indeffinatly if the government so chooses.


so you're saying we should let them starve to death?
I'd prefer that we let them have a trial, treat them fairly, etc. thereby reducing the likelihood of them wanting to die, but if they decide that it's their choice, not anyone else's.

[The Comrade]

agentkgb wrote:
I'd prefer that we let them have a trial, treat them fairly, etc. thereby reducing the likelihood of them wanting to die, but if they decide that it's their choice, not anyone else's.

they're prisoners of war. they don't get a trial.



and once again america can't let it's prisoners die.

the double standard is amazing.


NO PRISONERS AT GITMO!!!

LET THEM STARVE!!!

[agentkgb]

comrade wrote: they're prisoners of war. they don't get a trial.
They should have a trail though. I though just a few seconds ago you were concerned with improving the US' image?
comrade wrote: and once again america can't let it's prisoners die.
They can let the prisoners die, we have done so in the past and in the past years. There's a huge difference between killing and allowing death.
EDIT: Sorry I screwed up the quote tags. It's fixed now.

[The Comrade]

[quote="agentkgb"I'd prefer that we let them have a trial, treat them fairly, etc. thereby reducing the likelihood of them wanting to die, but if they decide that it's their choice, not anyone else's.[/quote]

they're prisoners of war. they don't get a trial.[/quote]
They should have a trail though. I though just a few seconds ago you were concerned with improving the US' image?
[/quote]and once again america can't let it's prisoners die.[/quote]
They can let the prisoners die, we have done so in the past and in the past years. There's a huge difference between killing and allowing death.[/quote]

and will anyone else but those in charge of gitmo see the difference?


the answer is no.


their deaths will be used to further divide the country between democrat and republican.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: I'd prefer that we let them have a trial,

As The Comrade already stated, these are prisoners of war, and thus are not entitled to due process.

agentkgb wrote: treat them fairly, etc.

Gitmo is not a resort. People are there to be punished and interrogated.

agentkgb wrote: thereby reducing the likelihood of them wanting to die,

How do you know that?

agentkgb wrote: but if they decide that it's their choice, not anyone else's.

They are prisoners of the United States, and thus are under the ultimate authority of the United States government. If the government wants them to live, then they live. As prisoners, they do not have any choice what so ever, because they no longer have sovereign authority over their own lives.

[agentkgb]

The Comrade wrote: and will anyone else but those in charge of gitmo see the difference?


the answer is no.
The prisoners will see the difference. And the world will know that at least we allow them that one small right.
The Comrade wrote: their deaths will be used to further divide the country between democrat and republican.
Again it's not right to force-feed someone just to improve American politics.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: They should have a trail though.

No. They are prisoners of war, and thus are not entitled to due process.

agentkgb wrote: They can let the prisoners die, we have done so in the past and in the past years.

And they can also force prisoners to live.

agentkgb wrote: There's a huge difference between killing and allowing death.

Irrelevant.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: There's a huge difference between killing and allowing death.

Irrelevant.
Could you please expand on that?

[The Comrade]

agentkgb wrote:
The prisoners will see the difference. And the world will know that at least we allow them that one small right.

how will the world know?

and what right is that? the right to suicide?

that'll go over well.



agentkgb wrote: Again it's not right to force-feed someone just to improve American politics.


letting them die will do the same thing.

by letting them live you reduce the political flak associated with them

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: The prisoners will see the difference.

The prisoners, and their views on their imprisonment, are irrelevant.

agentkgb wrote: And the world will know that at least we allow them that one small right.

Completely irrelevant. Foreign nations do not determine how we detain our prisoners.

agentkgb wrote: Again it's not right to force-feed someone just to improve American politics.

The prisoners have no choice, they do what we determine for them. If we want them to live, they live, and the prisoners have no choice in the matter.

[LostSoul3412]

agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: There's a huge difference between killing and allowing death.

Irrelevant.
Could you please expand on that?

The entire point is irrelevant on the grounds that both result in death of an individual. If that is something the government does not wish, then it does not happen.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: I'd prefer that we let them have a trial,

As The Comrade already stated, these are prisoners of war, and thus are not entitled to due process.
When Iraqi militants kidnap random Americans, it's considered outrageous, because it is outrageous.
LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: treat them fairly, etc.

Gitmo is not a resort. People are there to be punished and interrogated.
Punished for what? We don't know they did anything.
LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: thereby reducing the likelihood of them wanting to die,

How do you know that?
I'm guessing. If I knew I had a chance for a trial, it would reduce the likelihood I would attempt to commit suicide, same thing if I were treated better.
LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: but if they decide that it's their choice, not anyone else's.

They are prisoners of the United States, and thus are under the ultimate authority of the United States government. If the government wants them to live, then they live. As prisoners, they do not have any choice what so ever, because they no longer have sovereign authority over their own lives. The US came into their country and took them. It was basically kidnapping.

[agentkgb]

LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: agentkgb wrote: There's a huge difference between killing and allowing death.

Irrelevant.
Could you please expand on that?

The entire point is irrelevant on the grounds that both result in death of an individual. If that is something the government does not wish, then it does not happen.
The government killing them would be them dying becaue the government wanted them to. The prisoner going on a hunger strike and dying would be dying because the prisoner wanted to. You seem to have a lot of faith in the morality of the government.

[The Comrade]

agentkgb wrote:
When Iraqi militants kidnap random Americans, it's considered outrageous, because it is outrageous.


generally we don't decapitate gitmo prisoners.


agentkgb wrote: Punished for what? We don't know they did anything.

that's a dumb thing to say.

they're in gitmo for being militants. the military knows the exact reasons they're there. obviously you don't because you aren't in the military brass.


agentkgb wrote: I'm guessing. If I knew I had a chance for a trial, it would reduce the likelihood I would attempt to commit suicide, same thing if I were treated better.

you don't have the same mindset as radical muslims do. so your point is moot.


agentkgb wrote: The US came into their country and took them. It was basically kidnapping.

not it isn't. spinny mcspin.

when you try and kill american soldiers your ass is grass and you go to gitmo.

kidnapping would be stealing someone off the street who was just minding their business and holding them with no hope of release.