|
05 Nov 05 - 01:17 AM (#1597844) Subject: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan Donald Rumsfeld has denied a request by U.N. investigators to interview detainees at guantanamo who are suspected of being force fed. Force feeding is a particularly nasty form of torture used by the Chinese against members of the Falun Gong. Many people die from having tubes brutally inserted into their mouths and noses which results in vomiting blood and often leads to death. http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1597412,00.html Rumsfeld claims that the prisoners are staging a hunger strike to gain publicity. Is this his rationale for force feeding? |
|
05 Nov 05 - 03:49 AM (#1597868) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Teribus So how many of those being 'force fed' in Guantanamo have died Dianavan? Answer of course is NONE - Correct?? Your paragraph about the Chinese is inclued to give a completely false impression, unfortunately you bid to stir the emotions of the cuddly, correct thinking, left defies logic. You 'force feed' people to keep them alive, not to kill them (that by the way is the rationale behind it). The Home Secretary in the UK at the time of the Suffragette hunger strikes ordered their force feeding - none died as a result. Are you honestly trying to tell the contributers and readers of this forum that in the days when extremely intricate 'key-hole' surgery can be performed on delicate and vital organs of the body, that the simple insertion of a feeding tube would cause vomiting blood and lead to death. Absolutely ridiculous, and you damn well know it. Rumsfeld is correct they are only on hunger strike to gain publicity. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 06:09 AM (#1597912) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Stu "So how many of those being 'force fed' in Guantanamo have died Dianavan? That makes it all right then does it? "extremely intricate 'key-hole' surgery can be performed on delicate and vital organs of the body" And you know this is how they are feeding them at Guantanamo do you? Please share your sources of information on these procedures with us. It is not unreasonable to question the Americans methods when we know they torture people not just in Guantanamo but at black sites all over the world. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 06:16 AM (#1597916) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Paul Burke People who support torure can't very well complain if they (or those dear to them) get tortured. Just as people who support imprisonment without trial don't value their own freedom. Sauce for the goose and all that. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 06:55 AM (#1597924) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Teribus Why are they being force fed then stigweard? Or do we all take it that you and dianavan prefer it if they weren't force fed and were allowed to starve themselves to death. Have any died? Its a simple question stigweard, dianavan suggests that according to former forced feeding practices they should be dropping like flies - Are they? Do not quote out of context if you are going to ask me questions |
|
05 Nov 05 - 06:57 AM (#1597925) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: freda underhill Tuesday October 25, 2005 The Guardian We write as concerned physicians regarding the medical attention being given to the detainees on hunger strike in Guantánamo Bay, including, according to Amnesty, at least six British residents. US military spokesmen confirm that 22 hunger strikers are being force-fed. The World Medical Association specifically prohibits the force-feeding of hunger strikers. Fundamental to doctors' responsibilities in attending a hunger striker is the recognition that prisoners have the same right as any other patient to refuse medical treatment. Our own government has respected this basic human and legal right, even under very difficult political circumstances, and allowed hunger strikers to die in Northern Ireland in the early 1980s. Doctors (and politicians) do not have to agree with the aims of the prisoner or the steps the prisoner is taking, but they must respect the prisoner's informed decision. Doctors breaching such guidelines should be held to account by their professional bodies. We would urge the UK government, which so far has remained silent, to intervene to ensure that those British residents being held in Guantánamo are being properly assessed medically by independent physicians and to ensure that techniques such as force-feeding are abandoned forthwith in accordance with internationally agreed legal and ethical standards. Dr David Nicholl Dr Bernadette Gregory GP, HM Prison Birmingham Prof Elwyn Elias President, British Society for Gastroenterology Dr Michael Peel Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture And 14 other doctors |
|
05 Nov 05 - 06:59 AM (#1597926) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: freda underhill Hunger strikers allege 'force feed torture' at Guantánamo Jamie Wilson in Washington; Friday October 21, 2005; The Guardian Prisoners on hunger strike at Guantánamo Bay have alleged US troops punished them by repeatedly inserting and removing dirty feeding tubes until the detainees vomited blood. Declassified notes released by defence lawyers for three men being held at the prison camp on Cuba said the prisoners came to view the large feeding tubes - described as the thickness of a finger - as objects of torture. "They were forcibly shoved up the detainees' noses and down into their stomachs," the lawyers reported to a federal judge in August. "No anaesthesia or sedative was provided." According to their affidavits force feedings resulted in prisoners "vomiting up substantial amounts of blood. When they vomited up blood, the soldiers mocked and cursed at them, and taunted them with statements like 'look what your religion has brought you'." Yousef al-Shehri, 21, of Saudi Arabia, said guards had removed a nasal feeding tube from one prisoner and reinserted it into another without cleaning it. Another said a navy doctor had put a tube in his nose and down his throat and "kept moving the tube up and down" until he finally "started violently throwing up blood". Lieutenant Colonel Jeremy Martin, a military spokesman for the Guantánamo Bay detention centre, told the Associated Press there was no truth to the allegations: "Detainees are treated humanely. Claims to the contrary are wholly inaccurate and blatantly misrepresent the excellent work being done here by honourable military and civilian professionals." The prison camp has around 500 inmates. According to Lt Col Martin, 25 detainees are on hunger strike, including 22 being force fed. Defence lawyers who have visited the prison recently say their clients have insisted they will maintain the protest until conditions at the prison camp improve or they are released. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 12:28 PM (#1598065) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan Teribus - To my knowlege, none of the prisoners have died, yet. Please provide a credible reference for your statement regarding the use of keyhole surgery. I think that is purely speculation on your part. If force feeding is being done for purely humanitarian reasons, then why deny access to the prisoners by U.N. officials? freda says: "Defence lawyers who have visited the prison recently say their clients have insisted they will maintain the protest until conditions at the prison camp improve or they are released." If defence lawyers and the Red Cross are being allowed to see the prisoners, why is the U.N. being denied the right to interview the detainees? Lets not forget, these are people who are being held without trial. Regardless of why the U.S. govt. is force feeding prisoners, what gives them the right? My guess is that force feeding at Guantanamo is just another form of torture. Why shouldn't the prisoners protest? Why shouldn't they seek publicity for their plight? |
|
05 Nov 05 - 01:36 PM (#1598101) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Teribus Dianavan are you really that dense. At no time have I alluded to the FACT that they are using keyhole surgery. What I WAS SAYING was that in times when such intricate keyhole surgery is considered normal that it WOULD BE highly unlikely that 'force feeding would result in the end effects your post forecast. Fair enough??? Personally none of those presently detained in Guantanamo would have hesitated for one second in sending the people engaged in discourse here on this forum to kingdom come, I somehow find it heartening that so many of you spring to their defence. They would have no such compassion for you. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 02:08 PM (#1598125) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: GUEST Personally none of those presently detained in Guantanamo would have hesitated for one second in sending the people engaged in discourse here on this forum to kingdom come, We do not know that. All we know is how faulty intelligence has proved to be on several occasions and these people are being held ilegally. I somehow find it heartening that so many of you spring to their defence. They would have no such compassion for you. Even if they were all barbaric, that is no reason for us to be the same. I find it intersting to note that in another thread with regards to people who may or may not have been guilty of murder you commented. Thankfully for the accused Dianavan, in the UK, even under military codes of justice there still exists the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I would suggest your real standard depends on who the accused are and in fact work on the principle that those held at guantanamo are in your view guilty until (assuming they are ever allowed to have the chance) proved innocent. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM (#1598134) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan Teribus - Now, who is posting comments designed to 'stir the emotions' as you have accussed me of doing? Perhaps you would like to attempt answering the question, "If defence lawyers and the Red Cross are being allowed to see the prisoners, why is the U.N. being denied the right to interview the detainees?" Instead, you insist that the detainees have no compassion. How could you possibly know this? Just answer the question. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 02:38 PM (#1598157) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Teribus GUEST 05 Nov 05 - 02:08 PM "Personally none of those presently detained in Guantanamo would have hesitated for one second in sending the people engaged in discourse here on this forum to kingdom come" (Teribus) Guest: "We do not know that." Well Guest I won't be prepared to put myself in their hands to disprove the point. If you are saying that YOU would be - Then more fool you. "I somehow find it heartening that so many of you spring to their defence. They would have no such compassion for you." "Even if they were all barbaric, that is no reason for us to be the same." Completely wrong in this particular case you fight fire with fire, its the only language they understand. "I find it interesting to note that in another thread with regards to people who may or may not have been guilty of murder you commented. Thankfully for the accused Dianavan, in the UK, even under military codes of justice there still exists the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (Teribus) Guest: I would suggest your real standard depends on who the accused are and in fact work on the principle that those held at guantanamo are in your view guilty until (assuming they are ever allowed to have the chance) proved innocent." Yes they are, they are combatants by choice, it is not known what acts they have been guilty of perpetrating. That is what is being investigated, that is why they are being held. What is known is that they were part of the apparatus of State terror weilded by the Taleban in Afghanistan at the time when they were in power. To dianavan - 05 Nov 05 - 02:17 PM "Teribus - Now, who is posting comments designed to 'stir the emotions' as you have accussed me of doing?" Not me. Perhaps you would like to attempt answering the question, "If defence lawyers and the Red Cross are being allowed to see the prisoners, why is the U.N. being denied the right to interview the detainees?" So defence lawyers are allowed access, as are the Red Cross in accordance with internationally accepted standards, so if the above is the case, as stated by yourself, why would the UN want to interview the prisoners. Now you have to remember diananvan that the intervention in Afghanistan was a UN sanctioned operation, how come that this a an issue now? "Instead, you insist that the detainees have no compassion. How could you possibly know this?" Eh dianavan maybe the existence on the internet of video clips of people getting their heads sawn off. Which oddly enough you have never seen fit to comment on. "Just answer the question." I believe they are now answered - Now maybe you would care to answer some of mine? You won't of course - you never have in the past. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 03:10 PM (#1598181) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: GUEST From Teribus: it is not known what acts they have been guilty of perpetrating Almost right there Tribus. It should read "it is not known what acts they may or may not have been guilty of perpretrating". |
|
05 Nov 05 - 03:10 PM (#1598182) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan Teribus - The U.N. may have sanctioned intervention in Afghanistan but they have not sanctioned force feeding of the detainees at Guantanamo. I would also like to know what evidence you have that the detainees at Quatanamo are the same people in the video clips that you have mentioned. If everything is being done accordance to international standards at Guantanamo, why not let the U.N. interview the prisoners? |
|
05 Nov 05 - 08:20 PM (#1598408) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Bobert The point that somehow is being missed here is why are people being imprsioned indefinately aginst internation law and tortured, also against international law??? As fir death, hey, how does one define death... Some would argue that in terms of ones spirit and being that once deprived of any quality of life or chance for quality of like that you are, in essence, dead... Now, I'm not sayin' that I believe that but I'm not sayin' I don't but there does come a time in the diein' process where folks give in... I can see how a tortured, imprisoned person might reach this point even if biologically their body might hold out another 30 or even 50 years... By now most folks here in Mudcat have or soon will be part of a friend or relative's "end of life" and it is quite sobering... Havin' gone thru it with my late wife, Judy, who died in our home 7 years ago of cancer, I understand that part of "letting go" and when I think of folks in Guantanemo, yeah, I can see how folks might be there spiritually and emotionally... As fir the rightness or wrongness of force feedin' these folks, hey, unless you are going to give them any level of hope it is cruel to keep them alive... Kinda reminds me a readin' a few years back where an inmate was on death row and tried to hang himself and every effort was made to save him, so he could be put to death???? Yeah, the discussion that should be takin' place is why my country thinks it is above international law??? Bobert |
|
05 Nov 05 - 08:23 PM (#1598412) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Peace "Yeah, the discussion that should be takin' place is why my country thinks it is above international law???" Your country IS above international law. Law don't mean shit unless someone can enforce it. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 08:30 PM (#1598418) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Bobert Point well taken, Bruce... Let me rephrase: "Yeah, ther discusssion that should be takin' place is why my country "IS" above international law..." Thanks, you are very much correct... Bobert |
|
05 Nov 05 - 08:31 PM (#1598419) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Peace Didn't mean to raise my voice at you, Bobert. Just the situation. |
|
05 Nov 05 - 08:56 PM (#1598430) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Bobert It's perfectly okay, my friend... We go back a ways and, hey, you were perfectly right in bringin' my miswordin' to my attention... Yeah, there's an entire leap of involvement between thinkin' and doin'... Good proof readin' on yer part... My mis-speak... As per usaul, best regards to ya and thnaks fir keepin' an eye out on me... Bobert |
|
06 Nov 05 - 02:41 AM (#1598497) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Teribus Thank you GUEST 05 Nov 05 - 03:10 PM, you are quite correct, my apologies for that error. |
|
06 Nov 05 - 02:18 PM (#1598746) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: artbrooks Could someone please give me a link to a validated case of forcefeeding at Guantanemo? Sounds like a lot of bandwagoning going on. |
|
06 Nov 05 - 02:26 PM (#1598751) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Peace One. |
|
06 Nov 05 - 02:27 PM (#1598752) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Peace Two. |
|
06 Nov 05 - 02:28 PM (#1598755) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Peace Three. |
|
06 Nov 05 - 02:30 PM (#1598756) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Peace However, forcing someone to eat is not--to my knowledge--banned under international law. Ostensibly, it is being done to save lives. Whether or not it is being done the right way will be determined in a US court I think. |
|
06 Nov 05 - 03:12 PM (#1598795) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan It may not be banned under international law (I'm not sure about that) but, from the first article linked above, "Other groups, including Physicians for Human Rights, have argued that it is unethical for a doctor to force-feed a Guantanamo detainee who has chosen not to eat, citing international medical standards that call for respecting a patient's autonomy. The antiforce-feeding standard is endorsed by the American Medical Association." As to whether is is being done the "right way", how will it ever reach a U.S. court if access to the prisoners is being denied? Further to that, who do you think will prosecute and whom will they prosecute? You must be dreaming. Everyone involved will be covering everyone's ass. BTW - Have you heard that the only prisoners that have ever 'escaped' Guantanamo are the prisoners who were going to testify against their captors? Funny coincidence, that. These are crimes against humanity and every last person involved in the detention of those at Guantanamo are guilty. I hope they will be brought to justice. I also hope that the American people realize that these atrocities are being committed in their name. Rumsfeld is the instigator of these crimes and I hope it is he who will eventually be tried and not just his underlings. If this is the 'American way', who would want to be a part of American democracy. |
|
06 Nov 05 - 03:49 PM (#1598831) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Peace "While there is no international law against force-feeding, the WMA declaration "sets guidelines for doctors involved in hunger strikes and says they should not participate in force-feeding." The American Medical Association endorsed the declaration." I'd read that at this site--went to look for it: http://csmonitor.com/2005/1027/dailyUpdate.html |
|
06 Nov 05 - 05:12 PM (#1598859) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: GUEST Infants spit out and refuse to eat. We force it back to the babies. Geese are force fed before the Christmas slaughter and their livers are delectible. When it comes to hanging criminals body weight in relation to rope diameter and length of drop are crucial to a clean kill. Force feeding is acceptable and envied by those who do not have enough to eat. To assure a quick efficent neck snap it is in the best interests of the world governments and to prevent undo suffering to the criminal the body weight should be maintained. It is criminal to allow a criminal to die before their time or suffer through five minutes of strangulation. When their master, Sadam, has been tried and hung, the remainder of his vermin held at Guantanamo will quickly follow their master's foot steps up the gallow's stairs. |
|
06 Nov 05 - 07:20 PM (#1598924) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Dave the Gnome I wonder if our US collegues, who so fiercely oppose the 'force feeding' at Guantanamo are the same ones who rally against the British government for letting Bobby Sands die at the Maze in 1981? As mush as I dislike governments and politicians I realy do feel sorry for them at times... DtG |
|
06 Nov 05 - 07:31 PM (#1598935) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: artbrooks "Lawyers for detainees allege" is not the same as a validated case of force feeding. If true, it is clearly wrong, but lawyers allege BS all the time. |
|
06 Nov 05 - 07:38 PM (#1598938) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: artbrooks Ok, so here is a real news article. The doctor quoted says that it is because their hunger strike is causing extreme malnutrition. |
|
06 Nov 05 - 07:43 PM (#1598942) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: GUEST This thread is so pathetic! |
|
06 Nov 05 - 07:54 PM (#1598948) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: GUEST Agreed...but it is "below the line.," |
|
06 Nov 05 - 08:01 PM (#1598952) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Peace "but lawyers allege BS all the time." Hey, Art, it's where the money is. |
|
06 Nov 05 - 08:15 PM (#1598961) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: GUEST Sooo.....acknowledged the EU price for foie-grae?
What do expect the retail price for "liver-pate'" from a known
IS the offer from a human...or a goose?
Will you accept - E-Pal ...for delivery ...of a fatted human liver, in the next hours......immediate....can you/will you assure that it is free of living "human" pathenooieans?
Will post DNA - if a willing sponsor for DinnAVan (sounds like a restaurnat) is willing to sponsor = someone, over the hill |
|
06 Nov 05 - 08:41 PM (#1598972) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Peace DNA--National Dyslexics Association? |
|
06 Nov 05 - 09:19 PM (#1598993) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan The point is, the U.N. (on a fact finding mission) requested permission to interview detainees in 2002. The U.S. has now given some of the team (not all) permission to visit the prison but has not granted permission to interview the detainees. If there is no wrong doing, why won't the U.S. allow the U.N. inspectors to complete the inquiry? They have waited more than three years. Hmmmm - Saddam didn't want the inspectors either, but he did let them in. They found nothing and reported as much. Why should the U.S. fear their findings if everything is on the up and up. |
|
06 Nov 05 - 10:10 PM (#1599022) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Peace "Saddam didn't want the inspectors either, but he did let them in. They found nothing and reported as much." The inspectors also wanted to keep looking, but that continuing effort was pre-empted by an invasion. |
|
07 Nov 05 - 12:42 AM (#1599073) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan Are you saying that the U.S. should be invaded? Whats's good for the goose is good for the gander, or therabouts? |
|
07 Nov 05 - 12:57 AM (#1599077) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan Medical groups including the American Medical Association consider force-feeding of hunger strikers unethical. |
|
07 Nov 05 - 01:11 AM (#1599079) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Peace "Are you saying that the U.S. should be invaded?" I do think so. I think the US should be invaded by common sense--elect new folks in 2006 and a good President in 2008. |
|
08 Nov 05 - 08:24 AM (#1599952) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Wolfgang These allegations bring up memories for me and I'm getting very cynical: The RAF (Red Army Faction) prisoners in Germany in the 1970s went on hungerstrike too against the conditions in the prison. They (or rather: their lawyers) did compare the conditions with torture. The prisoners were force fed and their lawyers told the press that the force feeding was just another way of torture (not to use artificial feeding for hunger strikers is considered homicide in Germany, BTW). Our present minister of internal affairs, Otto Schily, then declared as a lawyer for the prisoners that the treatment of them by the authorities was 'execution by way of instalment". A half blind (in both senses of the word) Sartre told the public that the cells were completely bare for he had mistaken the visitor' room for a cell. The liberal public, including me of course, was outraged. Now, thirty years later, some former RAF prisoners are writing their memoirs and autobiographies and tour the talkshows. We now hear that the allegations of torture then were seen as a mean in the political fight in order to win over parts of the public and to turn supporters into fighters. The occasional mistreatment did happen, but most of the torture argument was part of a propaganda war for the hearts of the sympathetic liberals. Some of the lawyers were lied to and some others knew that they were willing pawns. The pinnacle was the suicide of three of their leaders with the help of pistols smuggled into the prison by lawyers. We now know from former members that the inner circle of the RAF (the supporting fringe was not informed BTW) debated whether it would be better to claim the suicides as a lst defiant act of self-determination about life and death or to accuse the authorities of a murder plot. The murder plot plan won in the discussion and so we were fed propaganda by willing lawyers that Germany had reinstated the death penalty without due trial. Some of the fringe supporters were won to become activists because they believed the lies. That's what these allegations remind me. It's not that I just couldn't believe that the US authorities might ever use torture or mistreatment in that fight. I wouldn't be too surprised if they would. But I have learned not to trust terrorists and their lawyers when they accuse the authorities of evil acts. For them this is just the propaganda part of a war, a bit with an eye to the liberal Westerners, but more with an eye to sympathetic supporters who might be turned into fighters. The former allegations of abuses of the Koran were also a good propaganda weapon. Would the terrorists lie if they thought it helpful? Of course they would. Would (a part of) the authorities lie if they thought it better this way? Of course they would (though it's a tiny bit easier to find out if they do). From an outside view, it is impossible to tell for sure who is lying to us. I'm a bit surprised that some here who would easily recognise propaganda by a government as such give no indication at all that they consider terrorists capable of a similar use of propaganda. Wolfgang |
|
08 Nov 05 - 07:55 PM (#1600323) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan The question remains: Why won't the U.S. govt. allow U.N. fact finders to interview the detainees? |
|
08 Nov 05 - 10:21 PM (#1600423) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: GUEST Will the livers be ready, in time.... for mid December delivery? ??
This is too much to ask.
What price (pre-processed) for ounce?
Will it be available through Harrad's in a tin?
Do we need to secure non-islamic vins?
What a trill to tril the tail of the tongue with the fat of a Koranian crud. Late in the December's dates, I will return to the states....what a lovelty, novely, to serve as a blessing on Nabisco bacon-blends.
Sincerely, DIANAVON and CRUD thank you for leading the pack to gathering grounds. (Dry Ice is important in assuring the matyers remains do not fall into the derespectfbul hands or hunger malingerers along the way. |
|
08 Nov 05 - 11:31 PM (#1600448) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan Whoever posted above has a mind like Jeffrey Dalmer. Even Israel has banned the forced feeding of geese as cruelty. |
|
09 Nov 05 - 04:57 AM (#1600503) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Keith A of Hertford Thanks for that information Wolfgang. I remember those events and did assume that an execution had been carried out. I thought how stupid to claim a that shooting in prison was suicide. The new revelations are not being reported here. Pity. They are highly relevant. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Keith. |
|
09 Nov 05 - 10:02 AM (#1600631) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Wolfgang Even Israel has banned the forced feeding of geese as cruelty. (Dianavan) Even Israel? This terrible sentence shows a deep prejudice. Wolfgang |
|
09 Nov 05 - 08:27 PM (#1601068) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan Let me re-word that so that it isn't misinterpreted. Israel is even banning the force feeding of geese because they find it cruel. In other words: If Israel thinks its cruel to do this to geese, why can't people understand that it is also cruel to do to humans? |
|
10 Nov 05 - 09:28 AM (#1601398) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Wolfgang OK, I'll tell you what the difference is. Artificial feeding is used in humans and animals to prevent death. It is done in some medical conditions when there is no other way of intake of food intake possible. It is not a nice procedure as I know from own experience. Like with several other medical treatments one only agrees to it because the alternative is worse. Force feeding of geese is not done to prevent death or because no other way of food intake is open to them but to make them take in much more food than they'd like on their own and much more than is good for them. The procedures are similar but the intention and the context are very different: one is done to prevent harm that cannot prevented any other way the other has no real necessity and does harm. Therefore these two are usually distinguished in English and if for instance your father can not swallow anymore due to a cancer you'd say he is 'artificially fed'. You wouldn't use the expression he is 'force fed' even if he has not made the decision himself (being unconscious perhaps). A difficult ethical question comes up when someone wants to die (terminal cancer perhaps; why prolong the suffering by artificial feeding?) or is on hungerstrike. Then the question is should we respect the wish of the person not wanting to take in food or not. Even if we do not respect that wish it still would be artificial feeding and not force feeding. What has to be done in such a case has a different response in different cultures and countries. Margaret Thatcher's decision not to use artificial feeding against the will of the Republican prisoners was obviously ok according to British law. In Germany, that would have been a case of homicide. Artificial feeding has to be prescribed even against the will of a person in a case of imminent death with rare exceptions for terminal illness. I don't know how the US law deals with such a situation. When our terrorist prisoners went on hungerstrike and one killed himself this way (Holger Meins) the supporters screamed 'murder'. When the others were artificially fed the supporters of the terrorists screamed 'force feeding'. Of course they used that expression instead of the correct one for the ugly associations it had. That word was one of their weapons in a propaganda war. One can debate whether one should use artificial feeding in cases of hunger strike when the alternative is sure death. But we should not use the propaganda expressions from one side in such a debate. It makes us look like partisan sympathisers. A bit similar like using in Mudcat discussions 'crusade against terror'. Wolfgang |
|
10 Nov 05 - 03:54 PM (#1601657) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan Wolfgang, you say, "...the question is should we respect the wish of the person not wanting to take in food or not. Even if we do not respect that wish it still would be artificial feeding and not force feeding." Its a moot point. If a person is forced to be artificially fed with tubes, it can be called forced feeding. I repeat, "Medical groups including the American Medical Association consider force-feeding of hunger strikers unethical." If the American Medical Association doesn't make the distinction between forced or artificial feeding, why would you argue the point? BTW - My post of 08 Nov 05 - 11:31 PM was meant as a reply to the previous post. |
|
10 Nov 05 - 06:03 PM (#1601748) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: artbrooks I am unable to find a reference on the AMA web site to force feeding or to hunger strikers, positive, negative or neutral. Please provide a link. |
|
10 Nov 05 - 07:25 PM (#1601814) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan The reference provided by Peace (06 Nov 05 - 03:49 PM) mentions this as well as this link he also provided - http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/10/15/guantanamo_medics_accused_of_abusive_force_feeding/ freda's post also claims that, "The World Medical Association specifically prohibits the force-feeding of hunger strikers." Perhaps you should read the references that have already been provided on this thread in answer to your earlier post: "Could someone please give me a link to a validated case of forcefeeding at Guantanemo? Sounds like a lot of bandwagoning going on." How much evidence do you need? |
|
10 Nov 05 - 07:49 PM (#1601832) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: artbrooks Dianavan, I have read all of the links. News media reports are second hand at best and often only opinion. If you will look at my post of 06 Nov 05 - 07:38 PM, you will see that I answered my own question by providing a link to a military physician's statement regarding forcefeeding at Guantanemo Bay. All of the statements regarding the alleged AMA position on forcefeeding are of newspaper articles quoting someone else saying what the AMA says. I am a historian. I prefer to deal with primary sources. Do you have any facts or only rumors? |
|
10 Nov 05 - 09:40 PM (#1601917) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: GUEST Rebels in Congo were accused of systematic rape, torture, and cannibalism in the northeast region of the country; some Pygmies were reportedly forced to eat their own relatives |
|
11 Nov 05 - 01:02 AM (#1602051) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: GUEST It appears, (particularly if a blood-draining method is used) the livers/kidneys/hearts of the departed (feed for several months on stricht dietary diets) will be available, after execution, for consumption by the free-world-leaders.
This Is GOOD. |
|
11 Nov 05 - 01:05 AM (#1602054) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: GUEST You and Gargoyle must be friends. Altar egos if you will. Do the slaughter on the altar. |
|
11 Nov 05 - 01:51 AM (#1602067) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: GUEST Article 5 of the 1975 Tokyo Declaration of World Medical Association, which has been accepted by the American Medical Association, instructs doctors that if a prisoner goes on a hunger strike to protest torture and abuse, it is the doctor's responsibility not to intervene in the hunger strike by force-feeding the prisoner, thereby readying the prisoner for more torture. I can find no signatures attached to this statement but until proven otherwise, I will take it as fact. I am not a historian and it is good enough for me. |
|
11 Nov 05 - 07:28 AM (#1602196) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: artbrooks Thank you, Guest 11 Nov 05-01:51 AM. Article 5 reads as follows: Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the doctor as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially. The decision as to the capacity of the prisoner to form such a judgment as to the capacity of the prisoner to form such a judgment should be confirmed by at least one other independent doctor. The consequences of the refusal of nourishment shall be explained by the doctor to the prisoner. Now, if someone could validate that the AMA has endorsed this, the information will be complete. |
|
11 Nov 05 - 03:41 PM (#1602561) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan Isn't the AMA a member of the World Medical Association? |
|
11 Nov 05 - 03:57 PM (#1602571) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: artbrooks Yes, and the US belongs to the UN. That doesn't mean total agreement with all resolutions and policies. |
|
13 Nov 05 - 05:45 PM (#1604045) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Wolfgang Of course it is possible to use the term 'force feeding' for artificial feeding of hunger strikers. The only problem is that this term is the same as used for force feeding of geese. To use the same term for very different things can lead to wrong arguments from a superficial similarity as has happened here in this thread. Force feeding of geese makes them less healthy, 'force feeding' of hunger strikers makes them more healthy. That's why all the comparisons with geese feeding in this thread are wrong. The ethics involved is something else. As I have said following the position of the World Medical Association would be prosecuted as homicide in Germany. Wolfgang |
|
13 Nov 05 - 09:03 PM (#1604185) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: dianavan Wolfgang - I find it interesting that you claim that 'force feeding' of hunger strikers makes them more healthy. That is probably true most of the time, but I would guess that it depends on how the procedure was carried through. I doubt, as has been reported, that if a tube is taken from one hunger striker and inserted into another hunger striker without being cleaned, it could be considered healthy. I would say that force feeding of hunger strikers is usually done for humanitarian reasons. That does not mean it is never used as an instrument of torture. It is because it is being reported as an instrument of torture that the U.N. wants to interview the detainees. |
|
14 Nov 05 - 09:44 AM (#1604572) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Teribus To get back to my question regarding Dianavan's statement: "Force feeding is a particularly nasty form of torture used by the Chinese against members of the Falun Gong. Many people die from having tubes brutally inserted into their mouths and noses which results in vomiting blood and often leads to death." How many of the 5 - 600 inmates at Guantanamo have died? |
|
14 Nov 05 - 08:04 PM (#1605116) Subject: RE: BS: force feeding at guantanamo From: Dave the Gnome Force feeding in this case would make the feed-ees more healthy. It would make the feed-ers less healthy and, provided that the feed is made from ground up prisoners it would make the feed the least healthy of all. Someone is talking bollocks on this thread. Not sure who yet but don't make me eat them... :D (tG) |