Life under lockdown at America’s hunger-striking prison camps

Aoxomoxoa said:
America’s offshore war-on-terror prison camp has gone from peaceable routine to hunger-striking nightmare. A look at life at the prison where nearly every captive is under lockdown.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/27/3368658/life-under-lockdown-at-americas.html


Click to expand...

Isn't one of the main aspects of a hunger strike, is that the person(s) CHOOSE not to eat and can change their mind when they decide to end it?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Well, part of the problem is that at least 100 of those inmates have designated as not being a security risk.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with the hunger strike and your angst at the prison making sure they don't starve to death.
Just think how much attention you could seek, if it was reported that they were allowed to starve themselves to death.
WHY; you could start a CT that they were starved to death on purpose. :eek2:
 
The Navy sent extra medical personnel to the Guantanamo detention camp because of a growing hunger strike as the American Medical Association questioned whether doctors were being asked to violate their ethics by force-feeding prisoners. The reinforcements arrived at the weekend and included about 40 nurses, specialists and hospital corpsmen, who are trained to provide basic medical care, Army Lieutenant Colonel Samuel House, a spokesman for the detention camp said, said on Monday. He said 100 of the 166 detainees had joined a hunger strike that began in February to protest their continued detention at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in eastern Cuba.

Twenty-one of those had lost enough weight that they were being fed liquid supplements via tubes inserted in their noses and down into their stomachs, House said. Five were in the hospital for observation but did not have life-threatening conditions, he said.

On Thursday, the president of the American Medical Association sent a letter to U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reiterating its long-held position that it is a violation of medical ethics to force-feed mentally competent adults who refuse food and life-saving treatment.
 
No, they're not biting, Tom.

Must be preoccupied with the 25 pages discussing that schoolboy's T-shirt. Priorities, eh?
 
Other than the obsession with the poor schoolkid who had to abide a dress code ( a clear human rights violation and I am waiting for a fund, like a UNICEF for bad clothing decisions, so that I can make a donation), I think the reason why this subject won't get much play is because conservatives are authoritarians. They are for this. They actually love this shit. It's Democrats and nominal liberals who are against this, and the problem is, a good many of them will not come out against Obama. You can see this if you go to a place like the Huffington post. It's really amazing. It's a cult of personality combined with a "my team" mentality. I think the bush years and the Obama years have shown that very few people actually have values they won't sell down the river for their party, their side, their team.
 
I would sure like to know the answer to it. I must admit that I don't. I saw where one poster said that at least 100 of them have been designated not to be a security risk. Is this true? I don't know but if so, why are they still there.

I think I understand the action taken by the authorities to prevent the effect of a hunger strike. I have no doubt that adequate food is provided to the inmates. I also have no doubt that the inmates would love to present the US officials as being oppressive. What better way to do it than to refuse the food and make oneself look emaciated and make oneself sick.

If the US is directly causing such conditions or is holding some that needn't be held then we need to make it right. I am in no position to know one way or another but I am also in no position to do much about it. I am glad there are watch groups that try to get to the bottom of such situation and when they do I'll condemn or applaud, depending on the outcome. But I won't jump to conclusions that something wrong is being done just because it is something being done by the US government. That makes me no better than STY who thinks every time a cop does something it is a violation of someone's rights and is terribly wrong.
 
leaningright said:
I would sure like to know the answer to it. I must admit that I don't. I saw where one poster said that at least 100 of them have been designated not to be a security risk. Is this true? I don't know but if so, why are they still there.

I think I understand the action taken by the authorities to prevent the effect of a hunger strike. I have no doubt that adequate food is provided to the inmates. I also have no doubt that the inmates would love to present the US officials as being oppressive. What better way to do it than to refuse the food and make oneself look emaciated and make oneself sick.

If the US is directly causing such conditions or is holding some that needn't be held then we need to make it right. I am in no position to know one way or another but I am also in no position to do much about it. I am glad there are watch groups that try to get to the bottom of such situation and when they do I'll condemn or applaud, depending on the outcome. But I won't jump to conclusions that something wrong is being done just because it is something being done by the US government. That makes me no better than STY who thinks every time a cop does something it is a violation of someone's rights and is terribly wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to know which of the inmates have been cleared for release by the Bush administration and/or the Obama administration you can find it here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top