Sure, but what other recourse does he have if he’s *denied *what he’s entitled to - in this case, due process of law?
- Fill up a private, windowless room with a smorgasbord of expertly prepared cuisine from all of the prisoners’ home countries, then leave each of them alone in there for an hour a day with nobody to know whether or not they ate anything.
Seriously though, they should be doing things to make the prisoners who are cleared for release as comfortable as possible. Either that, or just leave 'em outside the gate at Guantanamo and let Castro sort it out. We’ve been taking his refugees for decades - time to return the favor. Whatever the Cubans do to parade them around and make the US look bad can’t really be much worse than the status quo.
All I can do is read what the poster wrote. He could have written:
No, we should treat them with compassion so they don’t need to go on a hunger strike.
Now that has an entirely different meaning than what he did post. Plus, he’s offering an option that is simply not going to work in all cases. There are prisoners that go on hunger strikes over the mere fact of being a prisoner, regardless of how humanely they are treated. Unless you want to assume that hunger-striking prisoners are always right and that their demands should always be met, then you are not solving the problem, you are wishing it away.
He could have written that, but then that would not necessarily be what he wanted to say.
Yes, it does. It does indeed.
We’re obviously interpreting Zeke’s words and opinions differently.
My own guess is that he believes that a prisoner’s choice to go on hunger strike should be respected, even if it means letting them starve themselves to death, but that they should also be treated with humanity and compassion in the first place so that they never feel the need to go on hunger strike.
Maybe my interpretation is wrong.
His response to you was confrontational, but since he didn’t actually say “Yes, let them starve and that will solve the problem” I choose to not assume he is an arsehole just for being brash.
I don’t assume that hunger-striking prisoners are always going to be “right”.
I don’t think that their demands should always be met.
Honestly, I feel rather petty even responding to you like this, and I really don’t think I’m adding anything to the thread, so I think I’ll just push off for now.
It’s just that misrepresenting people is something that really gets my goat.
Our official policy was that after three days of not eating, a prisoner was considered to be on a de facto hunger strike regardless of whether or not he said so.
But the prisoners were eating in a cafeteria, right? How would anyone know that prisoner TR75439 finished his meal?
ETA: and thank you for addressing my question. Never done time myself. 
I am truly stunned that I have to clarify this, especially since Not Carlsson has done such a good job. But here goes.
Gitmo is widely considered to be an affront to the basic principles of humanitarianism. The UN has said, various medical organizations have said it, various legal organizations have said it. Tonnes of people have said it. This is not an uncommon belief amongst people.
Give that and the fact that: most are being held incommunicado (I’m willing to be corrected if I*'m wrong), many or most will never have the benefit of even a show trial let alone a fair one, many or most have / enjoying the benefits of enhanced interrogation, many or most will never get out so long as that place is open.
Assuming that those assertions are correct then it is not a sign of mental illness to wish to die. It is a rational response to an impossibly painful psychological, physical and spiritual existence over which one has no control and no conceivable hope of escape except through death. Especially since the goal, it seems, is to hold the prisoners until they die anyway.
So if the intent is to hold them as hostages (it seems to me this is a fair word) until they die anyway - why force them to stay alive against their will? Particularly if that force involves a humiliating painful and, at least the first dozen times I’d guess, frightening invasive medical procedure?
There can only be two explanations that I can think of: one is to avoid the shame and attention that hunger strikes often bring on the offending party, the other is that the goal is to torture them in perpetuity.
Whatever other noises are made by proponents there is no rational justification for wanting to force these people to live that doesn’t boil done to either one or a combination of the two.
So yes, I believe that an adequate and reasonable solution is, in fact, to let them die. Either they will give in and eat or they will not and they will die with some dignity and in some degree of control over their life. See either way the hunger-strike problem is solved.
I also suggested a third possible solution which you hand waived away. The prisoners could be treated with the same degree of basic human decency that we show to evil our most vile rapists, murderers and molesters. Then, as I said, they may regain their appetites.
And just as an added cruelty which you may not have considered; Ramadan requires a month of fasting between dawn and dusk. The feedings happen twice a day and allegedly take two hours.
Sunset on July 17 in Cuba was at 20:17 and sunrise was at 06:54 on the 18th, giving a day that is 13.5 hours long - roughly. Leaving a non-fast period of 10.5 hours.
This means that these people (and they are people mind) will either have a core tenet of their face violated once daily or they can look forward to 10.5 - 4 (duration of two force feedings) = 6.5 hours in which to sleep, Odds are they aren’t crashing immediately after being unstrapped so let’s say .5 hours wind down time after each one.
Now we’re down to 5.5 hours in which to sleep - but that’s deceptive because they won’t be getting both back to back. There would have to be a break between. So at some point this person is going to go to sleep, be forcibly awakened, force-fed, will be3 taken back to the cell when he will get 2 maybe three hours of sleep before that sleep is interrupted and the process resumes.
A month of that is most definitely sleep deprivation and is most certainly torture.
TLDR
John has misinterpreted and misconstrued both my statements and my position.
Not Has neither misinterpreted nor misconstrued my statements or position.
I have always had an issue with hunger striking as a moral act. Frankly, I cannot distinguish it from hostage-taking. “Do what I want, or the hostage dies!” The fact that the hostage-taker is the hostage does not seem to make a difference in the morality of the action.
Its the US that is holding them hostage by detaining them without access to legal representation or trial - so if you are going to criticise something or someone over moral issues, you need to think a little more.
Agree with casdave. Plus, the fact that the hostage is yourself and not someone else makes a huge difference to me. You choose to take yourself hostage and suffer for a cause, you’re not making anyone else suffer. Completely different morally, as far as I’m concerned
You’re “truly stunned” that I didn’t interpret “yes” to mean “no”?
Well, you must go around being stunned a lot!
Wah! 9/11! Wah! Terr’! It’s okay because of terr’!
Wow, someday, when drilling technology advances to a sufficient point I truly hope someone applies an industrial drill to your skull in the hopes of letting in a little light and fresh air.
Never before have I seen such a proud example of… I don’t know… cerebral vaginismus? Cognitive dyslexia? Congenital fuckheadedness? I’m flummoxed.
May you someday find yourself in a situation directly analogous to these people. Perhaps after a decade or so of illegal incarceration and brutality would force upon you the clue you are so assiduously avoiding.
I give up on you.
I must admit, John, that a stuborn refusal to argue in good faith is indeed one way to win an arguement. (With a fairly subjective definition of “win”.)
In his response to your question, Zeke said “Yes . . . . . . . . . .”
Zeke meant “Yes . . . . . . . . . .”
Zeke did not say “No”,
because Zeke did not mean “No”.
See Zeke run.
Seriously.
I don’t actually agree with all that Zeke has said, although I think our opinions are fairly close.
I do agree with him that your brazen misrepresentation of his opinon is both bewildering and frustrating.
P.S.
And, um, . . .
Oh, yeah. Gitmo sux.
Here is the exchange:
Me: What do they suggest prison authorities do when prisoners go on a hunger strike? Let them die?
You: 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.
OK, what do you suggest we do if we “treat them with some humanity and compassion” and they still try to starve themselves to death? Because, you know, prisoners go on hunger strikes a lot. Are you suggesting that 100% of the time, all they need is “some compassion” to stop the strike?