Wherever they ask to go. Why would it be up to anyone else?
To begin with, I’m not following you. You happen to appear in threads I’m interested in. Believe me, I wouldn’t follow you for any reason whatsoever unless it involved a shovel.
And if you are really so blind that you can’t see the difference between a young woman who has clearly performed the procedure, voluntarily, many time in a controlled and comfortable setting versus a guy being restrained and physically violated against his wishes and faith; then you are a fuckwit beyond measure.
Yes, or alternately, treat them with some humanity and compassion. Do that and maybe they’ll feel up to eating without the need for forcible restraint.
You may believe that but you’d be wrong. God doesn’t want them to starve to death in hopes of some supernatural exchange. Their God has set out a list of prescribed and proscribed behaviours. They, it would seem, believe that they are taking a stance that their god would condone.
Faith /= insanity.
Just grab someone of the streets. It’s not like we’re dealing with people or anything.
I bet you feel even more fucked over by the Senators who voted to block Obama’s executive order to close the camp.
But why let facts get in the way of good old-fashioned outrage, hmm?
Are you suggesting that Obama was “surprised” with the voting?
Are we now going to argue that it’s not up to him?
Oh, man… the bar keep getting lower and lower …
I’m not wasting time finding the man’s words, but I know what his campaign promises were WRT Guantanamo and cannabis. He hasn’t kept his word.
Convenient how Obama’s Senators vote against closing Gitmo…so that Obama himself can say “Hey, I tried to keep my promise.”
We’re talking about the video the actor made you friggin idiot. He was there voluntarily. He could have stopped it at any time. Or he could have just sucked it up and taken it like a 12 year old girl. I wish this guy was a friend of mine so I could bust his ball fore EVER about he cried like a little bitch while that girls—any many others—do what is an uncomfortable procedure routinely with no widdle tears. He volunteered to do this little bit of fake bullshit to generate outrage in those sheep he can count on. Sheep like you. Good for you for not letting him down.
I was not aware our Constitution afforded the president the authority to dictate to members of Congress how they are obliged to vote.
Of course this thread brings up the whole reason Guantanamo exists in the first place.
These are supposed to be criminals who are a threat to national security and have committed heinous offences against it, or if released will go on to commit serious crimes against the US.
Not a scrap of any evidence has been presented in a US court, they also do not have constitutional rights so they cannot appeal to the US legal system to test this ongoing force feeding and their rights in a US court.
So what we have is a bunch of people with no right of appeal against their detention or their treatment, or even their own right to die.
Way to go America - even the mentally ill get the rights of audience about their treatment in US courts.
If they are being force fed, the US can pretty much do anything else it wants, no matter how distasteful,l because there is absolutely no accountability, not even a change of President can trump the wishes of the US military - who or what is being abused? I would put it that the rights of the American people and the reputation of the US.
Frankly the US is little better than North Korea the only difference is scale, because the behaviour is no different, its ill will is just directed at a smaller number of individuals, for now.
Is this a whoosh?
Why don’t we give them some Anthrax or explosives while we’re setting them up with their fake identity and hiding them in our civilian population. I mean, while we’re at it, why not?
I say if they don’t want to eat, they don’t have to eat. Prisoners and protesters alike have long used fasting to call attention to a cause.
Should Gandhi have been force fed by the British?
Mitch McConnell, after apologizing for being a turtle in a human senate
Some of the hunger strikers have already been cleared for release:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/38395/guantanamo-bay-hunger-strike-at-least-4-strikers-have-been-released
How do you morally justify force feeding people that have been charged with no crime and actually have already been approved to be released?
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that as a solution.
(If anyone is actually suggesting that letting prisoners starve is a solution, then they are, in my opinion, turds.)
The point is that the Guantanamo detention camp is an affront to justice and human dignity and needs to be either reformed or shut down.
When you leave your arse hanging out of your trousers, you will tend to get people following you.
Some will be taking photos and laughing at you. Others will be calling out to you and telling you to pull up your pants.
You should try listening to the latter.
Seriously. Yeah, I thought that rapper looked like a wuss.
And I thought that kid’s explanation about her nasal feeding proceedure was pretty cool.
But videos of wimpy rappers and spunky kids aside, I can stretch my mind enough to imagine that being forced to undergo such a procedure would be hell.
On the issue of prisoners having hunger strikes, there appear to be three options.
- Force feed the prisoner.
- Let the prisoner starve.
- Give the prisoner whatever he demands - including a release from prison - in order to stop the hunger strike.
Is the first option bad? Yes. But I’ll argue with anyone who claims the second or third options are better.
I agree. So we should shut it down. But we should do it because it’s an affront to justice and human dignity not because of hunger strikes.
And I agree with this.
As to the ethics of force feeding hunger-striking prisoners, I really don’t know, but I’d love to read a Great Debates discussion on that topic.
Then you haven’t bothered to read this thread:
Yes
[/quote]
But if you have a Doper’s sick twisted imagination, it could be worse. That tract has two ends . . .
John, I think Zeke is sharing his opinon on a matter of ethics. I really don’t think he is proposing that letting prisoners starve is a . . . solution to the problem.
The opinion I was trying to get across is simply that if anyone were to actually respond to this issue by saying “Ha! Let 'em starve!” (an opinion which, as far as I can tell, no one here has voiced), then such a person would be, I feel, a complete and utter turd.
Prisoners should be treated fairly just because they should be treated fairly. Hunger strikes should not be a factor. A prisoner on a hunger strike should get the same treatment as a prisoner who isn’t on a hunger strike. No prisoner should have to go on a hunger strike to get what he’s entitled to and no prisoner should get something he isn’t entitled to because he goes on a hunger strike.
A prisoner who is not on a hunger strike is provided nutrition which he/she may eat voluntarily. Are prisoners in general required to “clean their plate”?
So, if a prisoner does not eat, but does not announce they are on a hunger strike, what happens?