Flamer's Bait. The UN Solves the Guantanamo Inmate Problem

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Dear ATSers,

We know that Obama wants to close Guantanamo. We know that because he's promised he would (many times). He hates it so much that he would rather kill people than put them in Guantanamo.

John Bellinger, who was responsible for drafting the legal framework for targeted drone killings while working for George W Bush after 9/11, said he believed their use had increased since because President Obama was unwilling to deal with the consequences of jailing suspected al-Qaida members.

"This government has decided that instead of detaining members of al-Qaida [at Guantánamo] they are going to kill them," he told a conference at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

www.guardian.co.uk...

So, Obama has figured out a way to prevent new inmates at Guantanamo, but what does he do about those who are already there, and are getting world-wide publicity for their hunger strike?

Here's where the UN saves his bacon. (Yummmm, bacon! Couldn't help myself, it's become a reflex here.)


Force feeding hunger strikers in Guantánamo Bay is against international medical standards and should be stopped, according to a group of senior UN officials.

The declaration has been published in response to the hunger strike that started in February and involves up to 100 detainees. At least 21 are being forcibly fed.

"Under these principles, it is unjustifiable to engage in forced feeding of individuals contrary to their informed and voluntary refusal of such a measure. Moreover, hunger strikers should be protected from all forms of coercion, even more so when this is done through force and in some cases through physical violence.

"Healthcare personnel may not apply undue pressure of any sort on individuals who have opted for the extreme recourse of a hunger strike. Nor is it acceptable to use threats of forced feeding or other types of physical or psychological coercion against individuals who have voluntarily decided to go on a hunger strike."

The statement is signed by El Hadji Malick Sow, chair of the UN working group on arbitrary detention; Juan E Méndez, UN special rapporteur on torture; Ben Emmerson, UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights, and Anand Grover, UN special rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. It is supported by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Well, that pretty much seems to solve the problem doesn't it? He always wants to get International approval, has he got it now? He can just ship the inmates (bodies) home. I love it when these things work out on their own.



OK, the UN also says that the prisoners should be released or tried, but that will take a while and in the meantime, well......

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   
I don't see how the UN solved crap. The said that force feeding is torture and illegal under their mandate. The AMA has said that force feeding is against ethical standards. But yet they are rushing down medics from the gosh darn military to do just that.

Since when has the government respected the human rights of those men. There are men that have been sitting there for over 10 years with out being charged and without access to the courts or habeas corpus.

Don't go all "it is all Obama's fault" on me. Your argument is faulty. This crap has been going on since 2002. Everyone has pitched a bitch over Guantanamo. See where that gets you.

These poor bastages can't even get a fair trial. Their defense attorneys are required to use fed computers for their work product and communications. It was also recently discovered that all the defense attorneys' stuff has been accessed by the prosecutors. It is a sham. It is a travesty.

Yeah, I read an article earlier today that now they are using drones instead of taking the supposed perps into custody. It is a disgrace. There is no rule of law.

What are you gonna do?? Everyone is fighting over other crap. No one is paying attention to the plight of brown people.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by GrantedBail
 

Dear GrantedBail,

I'm really sorry, truly. This thread was mixed fact, cynicism, and the Wizard of Id (one of my all time favorites). I led you astray, it was wrong of me to do it, and I'll try to make it right. (Although it might spoil the fun.)

The factual part was that Obama has had a problem dealing with the inmates at Guantamo, and it is believed that he is killing people rather than add to his problem. Pretty straightforward stuff.

Then the UN comes out with a statement saying two things, don't force feed the inmates, and give them a trial or release them. I focused on the first part. If Obama stops force feeding the inmates and they continue their hunger strike, they will commit suicide by starvation, and then he no longer has to release them or give them a trial. Problem solved, in a terrible way, granted, but solved nonetheless.

The Wizard of Id part comes from a cartoon in which the King looks out over the courtyard to see peasants shouting "Give us liberty, or give us death." He walks away grinning, saying "Some problems just solve themselves."

I went back to facts to show that the UN wanted the US to charge or relese the prisoners, then cynicism to imply that, at the rate our political and legal system works, they may die of starvation anyway.

Again, sincere apologies for the confusion. Friends again?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Please don't apologize Charles. It is such a disgusting subject that gets my panties in a wad every time I think about it. I get all wound up and go off all the time. I am a woman, I am emotional


The subject doesn't get much attention. Everyone has forgotten about those poor souls down there.


Always friends
edit on 3-5-2013 by GrantedBail because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Guantanamo is a national / international disgrace. Many of it's inmates, who have never actually been charged with any crime, and even many others long ago cleared for release still languish there purely for political reasons.
If they have been cleared for release, then why detain them? It's simple political theatre to keep the numbers up and show the public that they really need the place open... to protect us all of course.


If they are accused, then show the evidence and give them a fair trial. Not doing so just puts the US right up there as nothing more than a nasty banana republic. In fact, nastier than many of the ones that the US has invaded or helped overthrow across the last few decades.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Yes, Ok, Guantanamo is a bad place to spend a ten-year vacation. Just a thought for discussion, call them prisoners of war and release them at the end of hostilities.

But I'm sorry if you cant find a little grin in the OP.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

I see where you tried to add humor. I think I just looked past it. Sorry. It is a somber subject.

Love,
GrantedBail



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I have a solution release them with explosive collars on them. These collars have microphones and pulse monitors and cameras. Part of their release is they have to wear these and allow monotiring until they die. If they break a law or attack anyone boom off goes the head.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I found an article today discussing Guantanamo. I'm not trying to start a Bush-Obama war, but the article points out that indefinite detention is perfectly acceptable to the current administration, and they'd prefer not to stop it. Here, take a look:

"Remember that Obama himself has imposed a moratorium on repatriating people to Yemen. And Obama himself has insisted that nearly 50 detainees cannot either be tried or transferred. True, he would hold such people in a domestic facility, rather than at Guantanamo Bay. But so what? Does the President not understand when he frets about 'the notion that we're going to continue to keep over 100 individuals in a no-man's land in perpetuity' that if Congress let him do exactly as he wished, he would still be doing exactly that -- except that the number might not reach 100 and the location would not be at Guantanamo?"


What made Guantanamo such a travesty -- and what still makes it such -- is that it is a system of indefinite detention whereby human beings are put in cages for years and years without ever being charged with a crime. President Obama's so-called "plan to close Guantanamo" -- even if it had been approved in full by Congress -- did not seek to end that core injustice. It sought to do the opposite: Obama's plan would have continued the system of indefinite detention, but simply re-located it from Guantanamo Bay onto American soil.


When the President finally unveiled his plan for "closing Guantanamo," it became clear that it wasn't a plan to "close" the camp as much as it was a plan simply to re-locate it -- import it -- onto American soil, at a newly purchased federal prison in Thompson, Illinois. William Lynn, Obama's Deputy Defense Secretary, sent a letter to inquiring Senators that expressly stated that the Obama administration intended to continue indefinitely to imprison some of the detainees with no charges of any kind.


Here's Maureen Dowd in her latest New York Times column:

Asked about the hunger strike, the former constitutional law professor in the White House expressed the proper moral outrage at holding so many men "in no-man's land in perpetuity." But it sounded as though he didn't fully understand his own policy. Closing Guantánamo doesn't address the fundamental problem of rights. Obama's solution, blocked by Congress, is to move the hornet's nest to a Supermax prison in Illinois -- dubbed "Gitmo North" -- and keep holding men as POWs in a war that has no end. They're not hunger-striking for a change in scenery.

It's true that Congress put restrictions on transfers of individuals to other countries with bad security situations. But, since 2012, Congress has granted authority to the secretary of defense to waive those restrictions on a case-by-case basis. The administration hasn't made use of that power once. So it's a little stale to blame Congress at this point.

www.theatlantic.com...
The sad conclusion I draw from all of this is that for the next 4 years there will be no change in American policy toward indefinite detention, unless Obama wants something really badly from the UN and he uses the prisoners as a bargaining chip.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuppa
I have a solution release them with explosive collars on them. These collars have microphones and pulse monitors and cameras. Part of their release is they have to wear these and allow monotiring until they die. If they break a law or attack anyone boom off goes the head.


Next thing you know we'ed all be wearing them..like the proposal to make all the air travellers wear shock bracelets

BTWstarandflag Charles
edit on 3-5-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
An advocacy lawer on the Beeb the other day was saying the travesty is that the ones kept for years and years are not charged because they have nothing to charge them with..
to wit:
they were never guilty of anything ( ah yes lets bomb the innocent with bomb collars ...like terrorists would)
(Similarly Bomb Laden..was he ever charged with anything...?
no,
but the dancing Israelis were..then released)
Like the one guy on he same Beeb show who was a complete case of mistaken identity
Best part:
The guilty get released to do the dirty work and they are under control and brainwashed too
thats your Taliban and alCIA duh
edit on 3-5-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
ROFL
i see "sane" people fawning over those even "saner" than themselves.
kissing the feet, hands,buttocks,and unmentionables of their idol




We know that Obama wants to close Guantanamo.

We? what do mean by we, "sane" one?

but...

"he promised..."

:shk: just risible

like something an abused spouse would say :shk:



He hates it so much that he would rather kill people than put them in Guantanamo.

the opposite me thinks, if he put forth 1/4th of the effort, he's put into signing EO's so as to loot the commonweal and distribute the monies to his friends and benefactors, ramrod unconstitutional and otherwise unpassable laws, declare himself above the law AND murder whomever he wilt [including children]...

but pay me no mind , as i am quite "Mad" and enjoy winding up "sane" people
or automatons in this case.





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join