1 Why in the World would we force feed these pieces of garbage and help them live? Let the bastards starve to death. Then we will all be happy, and think of the money it would save. Geez, this crap gets stranger by the minute.

Next thing you know we'll be releasing the bastards right here in the US.

2 I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. These are enemy combatants taken on a field of battle out of uniform. Force feeding? How about hanging?

3 Thats probably because the US government doesn't want to be seen taking sides - not even its own.

Ho-hum, who needs to win elections when liberals already taught the military and schools about what type of morality is appropriate?

4 when the soviets were forcefeeding prisoners (they called them terrorists sometimes), Ronald Reagan told them that no civilized nation would do such things. Here is the account of one former Soviet prisoner, now an American, who says that we should stop doing it in Gitmo:
*****
In 1971, while in Lefortovo prison in Moscow (the central KGB interrogation jail), I went on a hunger strike demanding a defense lawyer of my choice (the KGB wanted its trusted lawyer to be assigned instead). The moment was most inconvenient for my captors because my case was due in court, and they had no time to spare. So, to break me down, they started force-feeding me in a very unusual manner -- through my nostrils. About a dozen guards led me from my cell to the medical unit. There they straitjacketed me, tied me to a bed, and sat on my legs so that I would not jerk. The others held my shoulders and my head while a doctor was pushing the feeding tube into my nostril.

The feeding pipe was thick, thicker than my nostril, and would not go in. Blood came gushing out of my nose and tears down my cheeks, but they kept pushing until the cartilages cracked. I guess I would have screamed if I could, but I could not with the pipe in my throat. I could breathe neither in nor out at first; I wheezed like a drowning man -- my lungs felt ready to burst. The doctor also seemed ready to burst into tears, but she kept shoving the pipe farther and farther down. Only when it reached my stomach could I resume breathing, carefully. Then she poured some slop through a funnel into the pipe that would choke me if it came back up. They held me down for another half-hour so that the liquid was absorbed by my stomach and could not be vomited back, and then began to pull the pipe out bit by bit. . . . Grrrr. There had just been time for everything to start healing during the night when they came back in the morning and did it all over again, for 10 days, when the guards could stand it no longer. As it happened, it was a Sunday and no bosses were around. They surrounded the doctor: "Hey, listen, let him drink it straight from the bowl, let him sip it. It'll be quicker for you, too, you silly old fool." The doctor was in tears: "Do you think I want to go to jail because of you lot? No, I can't do that. . . . " And so they stood over my body, cursing each other, with bloody bubbles coming out of my nose. On the 12th day, the authorities surrendered; they had run out of time. I had gotten my lawyer, but neither the doctor nor those guards could ever look me in the eye again.

Today, when the White House lawyers seem preoccupied with contriving a way to stem the flow of possible lawsuits from former detainees, I strongly recommend that they think about another flood of suits, from the men and women in your armed services or the CIA agents who have been or will be engaged in CID practices. Our rich experience in Russia has shown that many will become alcoholics or drug addicts, violent criminals or, at the very least, despotic and abusive fathers and mothers.

5 You can read the whole thing at:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121700018.html

please, people that are calling for hanging those at Gitmo--many of the people held there have been shown to be entirely innocent--some having no connection to Al Qaeda or the Taliban in the slightest, they were just sold to our troops by Pakistanis or Afghan warlords wanting to make a buck. The Uighurs that are held there are people I would support--they are fighting the chinese communists, to get their country back, and their religious freedom. Imagine, just for a moment, that you had been arrested four years ago by a foreign country, for a crime of which you were innocent. Denied access to your own attorneys, or to any legal process, for months, you are then allowed a process below international legal standards, in which you still have not had a chance to establish your innocence. After four years away from home and family...I might go on a hunger strike. What other choice do they have?

I think some of the people at gitmo belong there. I think some of them don't. The government has admitted as much. That's why we made a terrible mistake in not agreeing to international norms.

6 jd,

Reagan was just bullshitting about force feeding in the Soviet Union. He was playing politics. There's NOTHING inhumane about keeping people alive. It's no more inhumane than preventing someone from jumping off a bridge.

If there are innocent folks in Guantanamo, big deal. There are innocent people wrongly imprisoned in every prison on the planet. You want all those prisons abolished too? SOL as they say. Wrong plance, wrong time. We need Guantanamo, period. Otherwise what do you suggest we do with all those prisoners? It's already been confirmed that people we've released have turned around and attacked us. So excuse me if I don't take prisoners claiming to be innocent at their word.

7 I think its pretty inhumane to keep someone from jumping off a bridge.

8 >>>I think its pretty inhumane to keep someone from jumping off a bridge.

Because you are not well in the brain.

9 Shhould people be able to decide for themselves to have or not to have medical tratment ?

10 john,

these aren't "people", they are PRISONERS.

11 So, Carlos, its wrong for someone to do with their life as they wish, so long as it does not harm someone else?

I can see the argument that they're prisoners and they might want to be kept alive for information purposes or whatever, but your line of argument that keeping someone alive against their wishes is moral is tripe.

12 I believe that's the spirit of our constitution and the declaration of independence--relax, innocent people are held by governments and falsely charged with crimes all over the world, big deal.

Uh, no.

I also think you are guilty of the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. If the only choices were, let everyone go or have gitmo as it is currently created, then yes, I think I'd go for gitmo. But the choices are not that binary. We could have had a system of imprisonment that met international standards, the kind Colin Powell and the Pentagon counsel wanted, the kind we have had in previous wars.

If you don't think Ronald Reagan believed, deeply and morally, in the universal nature of human freedom, and he was just playing politics with his campaigns on behalf of Soviet refuseniks, then you have a far more cynical view of Reagan than most leftists. Love him or hate him, Reagan was a man for whom principles mattered. One of those principles was human freedom. I differed with him on a number of issues, even back when I was a Republican, but in reading a number of bios of the man, and bios of those who knew him, I'm convinced he cared about ideas and principles more than you give him credit for.

If you read the account of what force feeding is like, I think you'll find it pretty inhumane. I hope and pray we are marginally more humane, but it is very difficult to feed someone against their will without treating them brutally.

Why shouldn't we take the same position as the British who held Bobby Sands?

13 jd,

whatever the "spirit" of the Constitution might be, it doesn't guarantee jack shiite for enemy combatants who were taking potshots at our GIs and captured on the battlefield. The Constitution is pretty much silent on that, don't you agree?

See, here's where Jaaysus could have come in. Your precious Leftwing has basically killed him, as well as Biblical morality in general, and you no longer have any moral authority to appeal to. lol! All you have now is your "feelings". But just because you Libs "feel" it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. It'a all relative now! Welcome to Liberal dystopia.

So here's the situation. 1) the Constitution is silent, 2) you'll sound like utter fools trying to appeal to any kind of Biblical morality argument, and 3) Lib "feelings" are irrelevant to us. So now you got nothin. lol! Do you see now what Lefties have wrought?

In previous wars we were fighting other countries, with rules of engagement, who could be make to pay if they violated their agreements of reciprocity. Here we are fighting ghosts who play by no rules whatsoever-- none-- Who would set off a nuke in downtown Manhattan the day after we were forced to release them for lack of evidcence, and they'd detonate that nuke with not even the slightest hesitation.

If Reagan was a man of principle as you say, he was still a man. The only Man who's word is Law is Jaysus, and you can't even appeal to him because you killed him.

14 jd,

Ok, I'll admit that was a bizarre rant. Just having a bit of fun, hehe! (though it wasn't 100% tongue in cheek).

You do make some powerful arguments, I'll admit. But I still stand by my response about the Constitution being silent, and the GWOT being unique compared to other wars. We simply can't treat them like regular POWs for the reasons I've stated. Reagan does carry weight for me, but I still don't see it.

15 And here it was me thinking the Romans killed Jaysus, or he couldn't be killed at all. If he is the savior, nothing as feeble as American liberalism or secularism could kill him. (seculars make up less then 15% of America).

Sorry, my constitutional reference was obscure: it was in response to the statement that, well, who cares if some of them are innocent, there are innocents in all jails, do you want to abolish all prisons? That statement would have made Thomas Jefferson puke for days. I don't believe that detainees in Gitmo have rights under the constitution--but I believe the constitution demands that our government abide by the treaties it signed (see Missouri v. Holland).

You may think this is the first time we have dealt with an enemy that didn't follow the rule of war. But you'd be wrong. The Japanese violated most of 'em, including attacking civilians, disguising as civilians, using suicide attackers, forcing POWs to be medical guinea pigs (great novel on this--the Sea and Poison), killing POWs, etc etc. We fought them with tremendous ferocity, and occasional abuses--but, with the noted exception of internment domestically, we did not do anything like Gitmo. (and the excuse for internment was NOT that they violated the rules of war--see Korematsu v. US)

so if we maintained the rule of law on the battlefield against the Japanese and the Nazis, we surely can against these bastards.

Also, the Constitution is NOT silent on who has the right to set up courts inferior to the SC. And it ain't the prez.

I'm opposed to Gitmo for the same reason Powell and many professional military are: it's bad policy, and bad ethics. It will (probably already has) resulted in the deaths of many Americans. it certainly fuels hatred for us all over the world, and loses us allies we desperately need. So it's wrong, and it's stupid and it's immoral. Other than that, it's a great policy.

16 Jd:
Maybe I'm confused , but I thought the whole point of imprisoning enemy combatants in Gitmo is to keep them off the field of battle, until they can be rendered back to their country of origin at the end of the War.
We have not left either arenas, so why would we want to let these people back into the fight?

How are you suggesting the U.S should be doing this?

17 Hmmmm, what to do? These turds refuse our generous hospitality at a Caribbean resort?

I've got a few ideas.

1. Maybe a few of you remember that the US Navy lost its training area at Vieques Island in Puerto Rico? We used it for big caliber target practice. Why not use these turds, suitably proped up on a buoy out in the ocean as JDAM practice or practice for the big gun navy?

2. Hurricane season is coming fast, instead of sending our own crews into the eye of the storm, why not strap these turds on rafts and anchor them in the path of a Hurricane? Good for science, good for our own crews.


3. There's a couple down there that I'd like to use for my next shark hunting trip. Big sharks too. No itty bitty chum will do, need the big, 6 footer size for that.

18 The way to a jihadi's heart is through his sternum. Preferably with something large and sharp.

19 I'm suggesting: from the start, you say that you will abide by Geneva. You give access to the IRC, as required by international norms (we bitch like hell when other countries don't do this). You establish military tribunals following normal rules of military justice, not ones established special for this purpose. You have a rapid process of case review (ours did not really begin until three years of imprisonment were well underway--and we have admitted that almost 100 people have been wrongfully imprisoned--and if you think we have found all of them, I have a bridge to sell you). We don't let Rummy lower the standards of interogation thru the Bybee memo. We don't let Miller run the camp and export those illegal practices to Abu. We follow what every professional concludes--torture doesn't work, it just hurts the torturer.

We have a gitmo. We just don't have THIS gitmo.

And those of you casually advocating killing the innocent along with the guilty: please distinguish this from terrorism in a moral sense. Isn't what we object to in terrorism that they kill innocents? That's what you are advocating. I guess it's wrong when they do it, not when we do? Because you can't call these executions you are getting erections about "collateral damage".

20 JD, in every case, you need to break a few eggs to make an omlet. Same for winning a war.

Its a great sorrow that war has innocent victims. But no war has ever been won by paralysis. Direct action against our enemies is a prerequisite for winning. Our enemies reside in the MiddleEast and its a tragedy that sometimes innocents are swept up in the conflict. So do we suck our thumb and stop attacking our enemies? Sure we do, if we want to lose. War is and always will be aweful. Especially to the losers. Do you want to lose?

21 What articles of the Geneva Convention are you referencing, the third? treatment of Prisoners of War? how many of the Gitmo prisoners qualify as P.O.W's what about the ones who do not, what rights do you think should extend to them?

Define torture? are we discussing water-boarding, sleep depravation, white noise / bright light exposure, temprature change et al -- or the traditional sense: cutting, burning, crushing etc? I agree with the former, not the latter.

22 Actually, our own government used to define many of the practices it now permits as "torture" when other countries did them.

One can make a legalistic argument that the Geneva convention doesn't apply to some of them (not all, for some were Taliban and garbed as such). I've seen arguments on both sides of that and it is a highly technical legal question. But I'm with Colin Powell--whether or not they legally qualify, we should have said from the start that we would treat them that way, because it was good policy and good PR.

And as for collateral damage and wanting to lose: on the battlefield, I absolutely accept the grave and regrettable necessity of collateral damage. At Abu, at Gitmo, there is no need to do so, and I simply won't.

23 Terrorists shuld not be force fed. They should be pissed on. Just like John Ryan.