UN calls force-feeding at Guantanamo ‘torture’ — RT News
Source: RT
The UN human rights office has condemned force-feeding hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay, calling it ‘torture’ and a breach of international law. At least 21 inmates out of the 100 officially on strike are being force-fed through nasal tubes.
Follow RT’s day-by-day timeline of the Gitmo hunger strike.
“If it’s perceived as torture or inhuman treatment — and it’s the case, it’s painful — then it is prohibited by international law,” said Rupert Coville, spokesman for the UN high commissioner for human rights, AFP reported.
The UN bases its position on that of the World Medical Association, which consists of 102 nations including the United States, Coville explained. The international organization, a watchdog for ethics in healthcare, said back in 1991 that forcible feeding is “a form of inhuman treatment” and “never ethnically acceptable.”
Read more: http://rt.com/news/guantanamo-prison-torture-un-677/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)Is that the law?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Your premise presupposes there are only two options available... 
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)Not that i support Gitmo, but that's basically what your proposing whenever someone launches a hunger strike anywhere in the world.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)Because they are not going to be released or moved
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Last edited Thu May 2, 2013, 09:00 AM - Edit history (1)
Just sayin.
On edit, I removed the word stupid as that is not conducive to further discussion.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)Last edited Thu May 2, 2013, 11:03 PM - Edit history (1)
What is supposed to legally happen to prisoners on a hunger strike? Are they legally permitted to die?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)implications via questions but maybe I misunderstood your question.
Personally I doubt there is any law that says we must keep them alive. The prisoners have human rights and should be treated accordingly. If we are doing that, and I doubt it, and they still prefer death, I say the State can not force them to live.
Do you think we should let them die or force feed them?
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)So if the law says force feed, then force feed. If that's illegal, then don't. I have no idea what's supposed to happen. I have doubts about whether their detention is completely legal so we're starting in a bad place.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Obviously no one will state it outright, they would suggest trying to find ways to get them to choose to eat. But at some point you can't torture people to keep them alive.
Put in the form of a question, if they are willing to die, what the heck are you doing to them?
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)but I think allowing them to die is better than torturing them. What good does adding more torture to the situation do? What is the benefit?
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)Why would the US want to keep them alive? If they are considered terrorists by the government, then wouldn't death in prison be considered an acceptable outcome?
I remember from the old days that when prisoners died in prison, it became an Amnesty International issue. Are they kept alive because of the law or potential bad press?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Emily Davison wrote in her journal of her experiences of being force fed by the London Prison System in 1912 after she and many other Suffragettes went on a hunger-strike. Many of those women developed long-term health problems due directly to that action.
Anyone who is either on the fence, or is idiotic enough to believe that force-feeding is not in fact, torture would do well by themselves to read her journals.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)For several days now I have seen veteran posters give the ho hum or fall in line defending Obama on Gitmo.
Gitmo was wrong from the get-go.
The fact that it is still there is Obama's fault, Congress' fault, all our faults for not getting rid of it.
More than half of the prisoners were cleared for released but not released out of some knee jerk national fear of recitivism which happens in our streets everyday.
We're seeing now the same hopelessness in these prisoners we decry when it is a poor neighbor, Bangledeshi garment worker, etc. locked into poverty and suffering by some global corporation.
Let's stop defending it and encourage the government to fix it!
Get the criminals into the court system. The ones cleared or not enough evidence, let them go. We'll live...
I remember Obama right after getting elected back in 2009 trying to do what he promised in regards to GITMO, and Republicans pushing back. They didn't want the prisoners brought to their states to be tried, and Republicans in Congress fought against it that it was eventually given up, and now you say it is Obama's fault that it is still there? If you think it is that easy to get things past Republicans when they are against something, you haven't been paying attention.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/01/obama_orders_gu.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/senate-republicans-vow-to-keep-guantanamo-bay-open.php
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)It's HIS fault, it's CONGRESS fault, it's our NATIONAL fault. I do not say it is his exclusive fault...but he bears some responsibility as we all do. Spend some time reading Andy Worthington's work...there is plenty of blame to go around.
And...PLEASE..spare me the apologist crap...I've seen enough of it on this board.... just because we prefer Obama does not mean he does no wrong.
The harsh truth is that closing Gitmo has not been a national priority...period. If it was, no matter what the idiots in the House and Senate wanted it would be closed.
mercymechap
(579 posts)Obama to push GITMO closing, but you must be aware of what happened recently with Gun Control, even after Sandy Hook, all the effort Obama put into it, and still couldn't get it done, and you think that closing of GITMO would have been easier?
There are so many more pressing things that he has to concern himself with, but hopefully this thing with detainees starving themselves will bring it to the forefront, but still, I'm not ready to lay all the blame on Obama, not after the crap I've seen coming from the right, where they will oppose him on everything and anything.
I didn't say Obama does no wrong, I just don't believe in throwing him under the bus after witnessing what Republicans are willing to do to cross him.
And considering that Republicans do not want it closed, it'll be a cold day in hell when we can get it accomplished unless we finally get a super majority in the Senate and gain control of the House again.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Shaker Aamer.
Wake up and smell the crap your shoveling...
mercymechap
(579 posts)Republican/conservative.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Read my post..it is everyone's fault yours, mine, Congress, AND President Obama.
Look at how he has pushed for immigration reform. The Dream Act failed in term 1, he's back this term with the gang of eight trying to get it done.
Same with LGBT rights, a steady progressive push for progress, both terms. Success after some failures everywhere...a record to be proud of.
Where is that push for Gitmo prisoners? ESPECIALLY those cleared for release. He's only acting now because they are all hunger striking.
You can't make an argument so you call me a conservative....whose standing up for the persecuted (cleared for release prisoners) here and who is defending the person in power?
Despite many successes in other areas, objectively speaking, this presidency is a failure as to Gitmo...don't make it worse by excusing it.
mercymechap
(579 posts)and yes, it is everyone's fault, including God. And the reason I said you'd make a good Republican is because they accuse Dems of thinking Obama is Jesus Christ, and you sure lend favor to that thought.
The only ones that can really do anything about it is Congress, and they sure as hell aren't for it. The people can scream and shout, write letters, etc., but the Republican sheeple are not going to be on the same side as we are, so how do you plan to get around them?
Some Republicans in Congress are in favor of immigration reform, as well as the Dream Act. Maybe Obama is smart enough to go after those things he sees as doable as opposed to beating a dead horse. And I tell you what, Obama has done more to push Democratic ideologies than you would have gotten out of Romney.
You're condemning him for not doing something that you are passionate about, but the truth is, maybe others are not as passionate about it as you are, and certainly not Republicans. I say give Obama room to work around Republicans so that something is done, whatever that happens to be. I'm not in favor of holding prisoners indefinitely without trying them, but then, trying them has become a major obstacle since many states don't want it to taking place in their area.
It is a conundrum, but blaming Obama and condemning him when he has done so much more than anyone could expect with all the opposition he has had to deal with doesn't help.
And yes, I'm an Obama supporter, and I'm not just a fair weather fan.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)I just don't blind myself to his flaws and mistakes. He could release Shaker Ahmer today, despite the restrictions, yet he does not. He is a British citizen, cleared for release. UK is not a country that would meet the definition of a country that would not monitor him sufficiently, e.g., no Congressional intervention is necessary.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. If you want to hold Obama blameless, fine by me..just don't expect the rest of us to ignore his joint culpability.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)mercymechap
(579 posts)a great job at it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Progressives are more apt to question their leaders and hold them accountable. So to say that someone that is trying to hold their party leader accountable is conservative is backwards. And a typical response from a conservative.
mercymechap
(579 posts)she was questioning her leader. I was calling her a conservative because like them, she is dissing Obama without giving consideration to the fact that Republicans have had a lot to do with Obama not closing down GITMO.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)We all understand what the Republicans are up to. But that doesnt give the president carte blanch to screw the 99%. I am guessing that you are one that wants desperately to believe that the President will lead us out of this Depression. Wake up. He isnt. He is surrounding himself with corporate leaders, hello. He hasnt done anything to address the corruption of Wall Street but wants to cut Social Security. He prosecutes whistle-blowers more than Bush. He embraces the Patriot Act and domestic spying. He thinks that prosecuting and persecuting marijuana users including those that need it for medical use, is the most important thing on his plate. And now he is going to try to challenge the courts decision to allow the Plan B pill to be sold to anyone. And you dare criticize for dissing the president.
Your were calling her a conservative because you think that might get her to shut up. No one here wants to be called a conservative. Isnt that intimidation?
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)I'll tip my hat and say I was wrong...but give me something more than it's Congress' fault.
http://www.closeguantanamo.org/Articles/40-10-Years-in-Guantanamo-British-Resident-Shaker-Aamer-Cleared-for-Release-But-Still-Held
mercymechap
(579 posts)Shaker Aamer, and the British government. To expect Obama to override all opposition is a bit presumptuous.
One indication that the stumbling block may not just be the Obama administration, but may also be the British government, came last Friday when, in London, Reprieve, the legal action charity whose lawyers represent 15 of the men still in Guantánamo, including Shaker Aamer, announced that their client was suing the British government for defamation. As the Guardian explained, he "blames the security and intelligence agencies for his continuing detention," and "has accused MI5 and MI6 of making false and highly damaging claims about his alleged involvement with al-Qaeda."
http://www.closeguantanamo.org/Articles/74-Free-Shaker-Aamer-Last-British-Resident-in-Guantanamo-Sues-British-Government
You keep talking past my point, which was simply Obama bears some culpability, I never said it was all his fault...he could certainly have pushed harder on Gitmo than he has. I would argue that, were it not for the hunger strikes, he would not be pushing Gitmo at all as an issue.
mercymechap
(579 posts)"if it were not for the hunger strikes, he would not be pushing GITMO at all as an issue" - but signing the bill to close GITMO was one of Obama's first order of duty when he took office - or did you not read the article I linked?
updated 10:10 p.m. EST, Thu January 22, 2009
Obama signs order to close Guantanamo Bay facility
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/
So, because he didn't do it on Jan 20 instead of Jan 22, you believe that he has no interest in it? It wasn't fast enough for you?
Very telling.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)Your right-fighting, have-to-have-the-last-word "style" has landed you on the ignore list.
I have no problem disagreeing with people.
I do have a problem, however, with people who do not actually read what you say and give you the dignity of real consideration.
Enjoy your fantasy world.
24601
(3,962 posts)were 59, and later 60, Senators in the Democratic/Independent caucus - a filabuster-proof majority - until Kennedy's death and Brown's election.
mercymechap
(579 posts)of history. It's too bad that some Libs have accepted the lie that has been propagated by Republicans. Republicans keep saying Obama had a filibuster proof majority for two years, and that is nothing but bull crap. And even though there were more Dems in 2009 than Reps in the House, we had a bunch of blue-dog democrats, who weren't helping much, who got replaced in 2010 by Republicans, when they took control of the House.
In this video he's perpetuating the false Republican narrative that President Obama should have gotten more done during his first two years in office because he had a supermajority in the Senate.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html
This gives you a step by step explanation as to why Dems never had a filibuster proof majority.
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/
24601
(3,962 posts)Republicans, blaming them for the President's inability to translate democrat seats into votes and to use his supermajority because some Democrats opposed his initiatives isn't reality.
I never claimed two years of a supermajority and implying I did simply isn't honest. If anything, the period I cited for the Senate supermajority was shorter than existed.
But yeah, it's always the other guys fault - we were perrfect and are blameless. Just keep believing that and watch the Senate slip away even more.
mercymechap
(579 posts)and use his supermajority (which he had for about 72 days) and get all his promises passed during those 72 days?
This is what you said:
"Then there were 59, and later 60, Senators in the Democratic/Independent caucus - a filabuster-proof majority - until Kennedy's death and Brown's election."
So, if you weren't alluding to Republican's fabrication of a 2-yr supermajority, then surely you were saying that he should have gotten all his promises taken care of during those 72 days, and if you think that is reality, you are more delusional than you are aware of.
24601
(3,962 posts)passing priority legislation in the time available.
And once the Senate passed it, the House had until the end of 111th Congress (Jan 2011) to pass the bill.
The 13th Amendment to thwe Constitution was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864. The House didn't pass it until January 31, 1865 - but that didn't affect its validity.
Who did you believe was going to rally the Democratic votes - the Republicans? And in MA, I don't even hold their massive Republican population responsible for electing Brown. Do you?
mercymechap
(579 posts)cannot pass legislation unless the House also passes it.
The 13th Amendment was passed by the Senate in 1864, but it died in the House.
Had it not been for Lincoln being re-elected and re-introducing the bill to the new Congress, it wouldn't have not gone anywhere.
And, Obama can't force Democrats to vote his way. Blue-dog democrats in red states were catering to their conservative constituents, and sure, Democrats also voted for Brown, and that is just more proof that Obama can't do what he wants unless he has Congressional Democratic support, and certainly Republican support when they are in the majority.
So, all I'm saying is that I consider all the factors that keep Obama from doing what he said he wanted to do.
24601
(3,962 posts)had been elected but would not be convene until March 4th.
The 13th Amendment was passed by the 38th Congress, by the Senate on April 8th, 1864 and the House on January 31st, 1865. If the House had not passed it before the end of the 38th Congress, the Senate's action would have no validity and they would had to have started over.
The 38th Congress met from March 4th, 1863 until March 4th, 1865.
The first time a new Congress convened in January (as a result of the 20th Amendment) was in 1935 - the 74th Congress.
Back to the present - I hold that Democrats are responsible for Democratic party unity and Republicans for Republican party unity. I agree that no President can force any member of Congress to vote for or against anything. But a President also is party leader and should bears primary responsibility for failures caused by party disunity. The blame the opposition party is counterintuitive.
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)When Cuba let a hunger striker die in 2010 they were internationally condemned. So the question is, what is a nation supposed to do when this happens?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)restrictions would be great follow up to start with.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)" If her majesty does not know how to treat her prisoners, she should not be allowed to have any."
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)They have no hope of being released even though they are cleared so they will be held in cages forever (?!)
Its inhumane.
Congress needs to get off its ass and deal with Guantanamo and get these prisoners some closure to their cases AND release those who have been cleared.
If they won't do that then I believe these prisoners have every right to die with dignity. The right to CHOOSE to die just like we would want the same right if we were in a hopeless state (Terry Schiavo ring a bell?).
We are torturing them to keep them alive for... what?
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Who has cleared gitmo detainees for release?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)that are straight news stories from the NYTimes, Guardian etc.
http://www.closeguantanamo.org/Articles/38-Telling-the-Guantanamo-Prisoners-Stories-The-89-Men-Cleared-for-Release
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Is that nobody wants them and some say it would be inhumane to return them to where they were apprehended.
magellan
(13,257 posts)Not in every case. The problem is our government thinks sending them back isn't safe for US. I'd argue that holding people in extra-judicial limbo for no other reason than our own safety is the real threat.
Take for example the case of Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni man who was "captured at the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in December 2001 and was among the first detainees taken to the prison when the Bush administration opened it in January 2002."
...the military had recommended that he (Latif) be released in December 2006 and again in January 2008. A detainee task force under President Obama also approved him for transfer, Mr. Remes said. But both the Bush and the Obama administrations were reluctant to repatriate detainees to Yemen because of poor security conditions, so he remained locked up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/us/politics/detainee-who-died-at-guantanamo-had-release-blocked-by-court.html?_r=0
Latif died in detention last year. He was gravely ill - he'd been in a car accident in 1994 and didn't receive proper medical attention in Gitmo - and finally gave up all hope of ever going home. Sending him back to Yemen would have made him a threat? I'd worry more about the radicalization of those in Yemen and beyond who knew of his unjust suffering and subsequent death, which will be seen to be at our hands.
struggle4progress
(118,285 posts)Amid hunger strike, UN rights experts urge US to close down Guantánamo detention facility
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44801&Cr=guant%C3%A1namo&Cr1=
Myrina
(12,296 posts)You Only Live Once <?>
He was on Death Row, hours away from Execution and someone slips him a gun. In the escape attempt, he gets shot. SO THEY TAKE HIM TO THE HOSPITAL. I was like, WTF - wait. He's gotta stay alive you so you can kill him in a couple hours?
This reminds me of that, although I don't think any executions are on tap at GITMO (at the moment).
If the 'prisoners' at GITMO are innocent/not chargeable, they should be released to wherever they arrived from. If they are guilty, they need trials. Why do we continue to hold them in limbo?
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)that the last time they did this the tubes were ripped out of one prisoner and used on the next without sterilization, horrifying witnesses.
http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/stories/3198511/
"Rather than subject the Bush administration to embarrassment when prisoners die in U.S. custody, military guards force feed them. Thick plastic tubes are forced down their throats with no anesthesia. Tubes are not sterilized before being reused on other prisoners. The UN Human Rights Commission called the force-feeding "torture." Many prisoners also report being tortured during interrogations."
(knew I had to find the source, or some torture apologist would call me a liar. )
Judi Lynn
(160,542 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)they will drink the insure on their own.
Let them go home, quit torturing 21 humans with a billion dollars of medical restraint chairs and nasal tubes twice a day.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)Let these people go where they will. The only thing that is keeping them there is political cowardice.