Mos Def force fed under standard Guantánamo Bay Procedure

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by TheMagus

 

Pretty sure he's a troll so..

indeed, the schoolyard antics confirm it
no need to waste my time.

sadism is de riguer for fascists
as well

"sometimes silence is the best answer"

but keeping on topic...

One should forget about what you feel about these men, or the situation for a moment and get comfortable with the truth versus what you believe to be true.

1. You do not own your body, it is like a car you get to use but only with the permission of the state. If you are in prison, for any reason at all (rightly or wrongly) you have no right to even use your body - it is property returned to the State for failure to use correctly. Think impounded car. The State owns your car, you do not have title the do, and they let you use it, until they change there mind.

2. Personal self determination is not in order anywhere on the planet, especially in prison. You cannot do anything with your body that the State does not approve of - nothing. You cannot kill yourself if you please outside of prison without harming the State, which is why you can't get permission - the State will not willingingly allow an asset of the State to self determine its fate.

3. Prisoners in Guantanamo are assets of the State. Read 1 and 2 to see what rights they have. The same rights as you, you just believe otherwise, but you are well wrong.

A tube up the nose down into the stomach is stupidly uncomfortable. Painful? No. Granted if it were forced on me I may have a reaction similar to the artist formerly known as Mos Def, knowing what is coming it really is not that bad. And if you are wondering, in certain areas of training you shove tubes down others throats, in the same sort of vain as getting tazed or pepper sprayed to know what it is like and for practice....

Originally posted by TheMagus

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
What a pansy. Not to say that this is an ethical practice, but it's not a formal form of torture by any means, nor is the intent to torture. Mos Def lasted like 10 seconds.

I agree that Guantanimo should be shut down; however, while it's open, the inmates don't leave us with much choice but to force feed them when they go on hunger strikes.

in case you didn't know
this used to be done to women
during the early 20th century [force feeding ]
blogs.warwick.ac.uk...
i.dailymail.co.uk...

their "crime" was demanding the vote for women

but i guess enabler's will always be fine with torture if it's for their benefit, economically or otherwise

you have only the word of known psychopathic liars and killers
that the people locked up in gitmo ever hurt anyone.

but don't let me get in the way of the Two Minutes Hate

and pay no heed to my words as I Am quite "Insane"

So, what do you suggest, that we let them starve to death? Did you think I'm ignorant? Did you read my post? It was a rather short post, I assure you. Perhaps reading before you reply would help.

Ahem.
I don't blindly put faith in government, if that's what your suggesting. I wrote that I think Gitmo should be closed down.

HOWEVER, for the second time, while the inmates are on a HUNGER STRIKE, we have a duty to FEED THEM.

Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
Keeping islamic terrorists alive when they wish to die is the correct course of action.
All they have to do is start eating by themselves and force feeding need not occur.

There is no proof these people are terrorist.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Aside from my noted objections in a thread I wrote on the topic for force feeding during Ramadan and how that impacts the religious side of things (For our benefit as a nation of laws, not theirs as predators in a cage), I really have pretty clear feelings on this.

If they want to die, let them. Help them. Make it as easy as humanly possible for them. If they really want to die by starvation? Good. It's a hard hard way to die and I can think of few better men in the world to suffer that specific fate than those who remain in that place now. Who are we to "violate" them by keeping them alive?

Now..I'd add to the above that we should have food available and ready to offer them, right to the last moment of their dying breath. Legitimate and sincere offers for help if they change their mind. It's the human thing to do.. However, they want to force release? Well... There is a way out of Gitmo. Find a fence and climb. The Machine guns will bring escape before climbing will but one brings the other without all that discomfort of starving.

What nation of laws? You sure can't be speaking of America. Because Gitmo is illegal just as the useless torture treatment that goes on there. Anyone that supports Gitmo is the same type of person that supported the Nazis rounding up the Jews.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
If they want to die, let them.

Why didn't they think of that with Ghandi? haha

I do believe hunger strike is a legitimate form of protest in many circumstances, and I don't think letting people die that way (if their demands are sensible) is the correct thing to do.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
Keeping islamic terrorists alive when they wish to die is the correct course of action.
All they have to do is start eating by themselves and force feeding need not occur.

There is no proof these people are terrorist.

Riiiiight. Because the armed forces has nothing better to do than fly farmers across the world and detain them in max security prisons while force feeding them to keep them alive.

Originally posted by jjkenobi



Riiiiight. Because the armed forces has nothing better to do than fly farmers across the world and detain them in max security prisons while force feeding them to keep them alive.

If they are terrorist. you may as well let them die.


But yes alot have been wrongly imprisoned.

I remeber a few years back a brit who was detained (I dunno if it was GITMO, one of the other black prison or both) said he was picked up by mistake due to haveing the same name as a wanted suspect and was thrown into the USA black prison system and and tortured even after they realised they made the mistake.

Its known innocent people were handed over to the USA for bounty money. And to some of these in the USA people a Arab is a Arab and there all guilty. The people Military and Civilian running this sytem are most likley prejudiced cold hearted SOB's who are choosen for exactly those qualitys. So they wont give a dam about idue process or human rights. The arabs too them are most likley no diffrent from the Jews to the Gestapo and SS.

No not every in the US military or alphabet agencys are evil, And I may be navie but I think the majority are good honrable people. But you will have evil wicked people in there mist too like any country, the USA is not excempt breeding evil. And those people will be the ones doing this stuff and supporting it.

reply to post by LordDerpingtonSmythe


I have no sympathy what so ever for those who murder innocents indiscriminately. When you look at the definition of the word terrorist it applies to most the wolds armies now a days. I'm not saying solders are bad people. Not at all they are just following orders. But look at the death tolls in the recent wars for profit and those with the most kills to their names are a little too close to home than I would like to admit.

The people in there should all be given trials. If found innocent they should be released and given compensation.

If guilty lock them up in a fedral prison.

Bush and his staff, Obama and hist staff and Toney blair and Gordon Brown and there staff should all be picked up face a military tribunal and if found guilty put in prisoned there forced to indure the same treatment.

That was a bit of drama on Mos Def's part. Tubes to feed and pump the stomach
are placed in thousands of hospital patients a day without sedation. It may not be
pleasant, but it isn't water-boarding...

Still, feeding a man during his religious fast is adding salt to the wound and insult to injury.
I imagine, however that this is purposeful, because from everything I can tell our actions are more
about inciting, instigating, and perpetuating terrorism than abolishing it.

Forcing a man to live against his will is as great an injustice as killing him. We each should hold
dominion over our right to live and die...

But

In this country and in most of the world, suicide (or attempted suicide) is a crime. Which, of course,
is as ludicrous as the swab of alcohol that is used to sterilize the arm of the death-row inmate
in the moment prior to his lethal injection...likewise the suicide watch that is placed over death-row
inmates who are believed to be suicide risks.

The only thing that needs force-feeding IMHO is the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

....those two documents, sadly, are on life support...and the outlook is bleak

reply to post by WaterBottle


I don't agree with Gitmo at all but if they're there under whatever screwed up law, they know they don't have much rights if at all. What makes them think they'll be allowed to hunger strike. If the guards there can be so heartless, detainees won't stand a chance in any kind of protest.

reply to post by rival


Well the psychology of being forced down, tied down against your will has a lot of weight behind it. Some can handle it some can't. Plus during Ramadan...that's pretty messed up.
--
I don't know if any of you have seen this episode of Myth Busters. Water Torture. Carrie is fine when not tied down but looses it when she is.
--
Myth Busters Water Torture
--

reply to post by XLR8R


A lot of them have already been cleared to be let free and are inexplicably still rotting away.

reply to post by buster2010


You'll have to show me where the prison at Gitmo is illegal under any written law? It's unwise and it's become a blight on our national image (whats left of it after 10+ years of dirty wars) but illegal? I'm not aware of anything in U.S. Federal Code that makes anything about Gitmo illegal.

Terms have meaning and meaning sets policy. Illegal is a real big term...and in this case? 100% misplaced, however good it may sound to say.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
If they want to die, let them.

Why didn't they think of that with Ghandi? haha

I do believe hunger strike is a legitimate form of protest in many circumstances, and I don't think letting people die that way (if their demands are sensible) is the correct thing to do.

Well, I have a very serious and sincere question for you? First..I agree with you in saying Hunger Strikes are a legitimate form of protest. In some cases, it's the only form a human being has left them to show protest at all.

Having said that...and specific to Gitmo's prison camp...What do we do with them? If we can't let them die, as they've determined to do by hunger strike ...and everyone from the courts to the International Red Cross says we cannot force feed them either ....

Well, were' in a catch-22 to beat them all. The only 3rd option is to release them based on their protest and lack of options it leaves. Can you imagine the chaos in both military and civilian prisons if it became precedent that hunger striking could, in any circumstances, lead to a free walk out the gate? I dare say the bureau of prisons would save a fortune on food at first, as most of the system would go on strike after seeing success in Cuba.

So in all honesty...What do we do in an unwinnable situation like this?

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by James1982

 

He's not actually at Guantanamo - he volunteered to undergo the procedure to show what these prisoners are experiencing.

Yeah... I realized that, while reading the OP. I said I thought he got sent to gitmo right after reading the title, but before reading the thread. Which means I was browsing ATS, saw the thread title, thought to myself "Why is mosdef at gitmo?" opened this thread, read it, and realized what was going on.

reply to post by rival

. Tubes to feed and pump the stomach are placed in thousands of hospital patients a day without sedation. It may not be pleasant, but it isn't water-boarding...

Hospital patients generally know what is going on and they aren't being FORCED to have a tube down their throat. The psychology of having your captor force a tube up your nose would be quite traumatic, I would imagine.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
So, what do you suggest, that we let them starve to death? Did you think I'm ignorant? Did you read my post? It was a rather short post, I assure you. Perhaps reading before you reply would help.

Ahem.
I don't blindly put faith in government, if that's what your suggesting. I wrote that I think Gitmo should be closed down.

HOWEVER, for the second time, while the inmates are on a HUNGER STRIKE, we have a duty to FEED THEM.

What, exactly, makes it our duty to feed them if they choose to not eat?

I agree, if they want to eat-- as our prisoners it is our duty to feed them, to keep them alive. That is not only simple common sense and common decency, but I would imagine it's written in law somewhere in code on how prisoners are to be treated.

But my question is why you say it is our "duty" to force food upon someone who chooses not to eat? That makes no sense to me. Keep them alive against their will simply because we don't agree with someone ending their own life, or starving themselves in protest? IMHO that is a form of torture, and IMHO it also deprives the people of some of their most basic rights that even a jail cell should not take away-- the right to die. (Or the right to not eat, which should be seen as a "right" as well.)


The only case where I could see maybe violating this is if that prisoner had information they had thus far been unwilling to convey, which we needed. And IMHO it would have to be vital information (vital to the lives / safety of others) to make this completely acceptable.