Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein

Terri Gitmiavio
by Lee

I’ll say one thing for the Bush administration, they’re fucking consistent when it comes to feeding tubes.

A Kuwaiti detainee on hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay wants a judge to order the removal of his feeding tube so he can be allowed to die, his lawyer says.

Fawzi al-Odah is ready to die “out of desperation” at his detention without charge, said his lawyer Tom Wilner.

Mr al-Odah is one of about 26 detainees being fed by tube, against their will.

Force-feeding is highly controversial. Campaigners in London on Tuesday said it was unethical and painful, but US authorities say they are saving lives.

Mr al-Odah, a 28-year-old who was arrested in Pakistan in 2002, has asked his lawyers to file papers seeking a judicial order that his tube be removed, Mr Wilner told AP news agency.

“He is willing to take a stand if it will bring justice,” Mr Wilner said.

However, Mr Wilner said the papers had not yet been filed due to the opposition of his client’s family, who were “frantic” about the situation.

Despite being force-fed, Mr al-Odah “looks like a skeleton”, Mr Wilner said.

Hell, I say let the guy go on his hunger strike.  Then we should have a chef prepare delicious traditional Arabic meals, and place them right outside his cell, and have a fan blow the scents into his cage.  We’ll see just how great his will to die is then.  As far as having a feeding tube inserted being unethical and painful, horseshit.  When my dad was in the hospital he had one.  The only reason its painful is because this dickhead won’t lie still while they insert it.

“As a matter of policy our mission is to… [prevent] unnecessary loss of life of the detainees through standard medical intervention, including involuntary medical nutrition,” Lieutenant Colonel Jeremy Martin, military spokesman at Guantanamo Bay, told the BBC News website.

He said hunger strikers were “clinically stable” and were receiving compassionate care. Only doctors and qualified nurses administered the tube-feeding, he said.

“The dangerous men we are holding are held in an environment that is stable, secure and humane,” he said.

See, it’s so sad that I have to read his remarks with derision, but the policies that we’ve enacted in Gitmo regarding prisoner abuse have made statements like this laughable.  It used to just be a given that a prisoner held in US custody would be treated in this manner, but with people being beaten to death, can we still make that claim?

Rights groups and doctors have expressed concern over the health of hunger strikers, and have also highlighted ethical concerns over the practice of force-feeding.

“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,” said 18 doctors in a letter to the UK’s Guardian newspaper on Tuesday.

Which gets back to my previous idea.  If these dickheads don’t want to eat, fine.  We can turn it into another form of pressure.  Let’s see how great their will to starve is when we present before them a cornucopia of delicious tastes from their homeland.

Posted by Lee on 10/29/05 at 12:51 PM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 10/29/05 at 02:29 PM from United States

Hell, I say let the guy go on his hunger strike.  Then we should have a chef prepare delicious traditional Arabic meals, and place them right outside his cell, and have a fan blow the scents into his cage

Careful now..Dont wanna torture them

Posted by mikeguas on 10/29/05 at 02:29 PM from United States

See, it’s so sad that I have to read his remarks with derision, but the policies that we’ve enacted in Gitmo regarding prisoner abuse have made statements like this laughable.  It used to just be a given that a prisoner held in US custody would be treated in this manner, but with people being beaten to death, can we still make that claim?

I wasn’t aware anyone was beaten to death in Guantanamo. I know some were in Iraq, and maybe there has been some torture in Gitmo, but when I hear about torture being things like sleep deprivation and loud music, it makes me suspect about how bad things really are. Sleep depravation used to be considered a non violent way of getting information. Now it’s considered torture by ‘activists’. Hell, anything but getting 70 virgins, and free suicide belts courtesy of the US is considered torture now.

Posted by Drumwaster on 10/29/05 at 02:39 PM from United States

Does he get his 72 raisins if he dies as a result of his refusing food, rather than in battle against the infidel?

I mean, what kind of a battle is that? Every parent on Earth knows how to deal with a tantrum. The sane ones will ignore it and wait until it subsides before starting over again with “here comes the airplane...”

The foolish ones will rush to buy them a new toy or candy or whatever they are demanding, which only proves to the terrorist, er, “child” that he can get anything he wants if he “throws a tantrum” (e.g., blows up some civilians).

I’m also reminded of something a fire chief once said when explaining why he would no longer send him men up a tree after cats. “I’ve never seen a cat skeleton in a tree. When it gets hungry, it’ll come down on his own.”

Posted by mikeguas on 10/29/05 at 03:02 PM from United States

If these dickheads don’t want to eat, fine.  We can turn it into another form of pressure.  Let’s see how great their will to starve is when we present before them a cornucopia of delicious tastes from their homeland.

We could do this, but it might be considered torture. I’m not joking either. I could easily see a claim being made that this is belittling someone while they are starving to death, even though that choice to starve was their own.

Posted by InsipiD on 10/29/05 at 03:13 PM from United States

I’m inclined to think that someone who is willing to starve themselves to death is highly motivated.  Therefore, the ones who are doing that are probably some of the most important witnesses that we might have down there and should be kept alive so that they’ll be able to talk.  They wouldn’t be willing to do it if they didn’t think it would keep us down by doing so.

Posted by on 10/29/05 at 05:43 PM from Canada

I wasn’t aware anyone was beaten to death in Guantanamo. I know some were in Iraq, and maybe there has been some torture in Gitmo, but when I hear about torture being things like sleep deprivation and loud music, it makes me suspect about how bad things really are. Sleep depravation used to be considered a non violent way of getting information. Now it’s considered torture by ‘activists’. Hell, anything but getting 70 virgins, and free suicide belts courtesy of the US is considered torture now.

I have even seen interviews on TV with people who think that having muslim prisoners interviewed by women is a form of torture.  This is getting a bit ridicules.  When the Gitmo story broke a British reporter interviewed on a Canadian radio station admitted that it was a bit of a stretch to call what happened there torture.  I used this particular example because usually British and ESPECIALLY Canadian reporters can be counted on to take every opportunity to bash Americans whenever they can.  Lee when did the real torture happen?

Posted by on 10/29/05 at 06:04 PM from United States

When someone started playing Madonna’s “Like a Virgin” for the 72nd time.

Posted by Lee on 10/29/05 at 06:08 PM from United States

I really, truly, almost hate to do this, because I know the shit I’m going to catch from everyone here.  There is a tendency among so many people, especially where it concerns national security issues, to immediately disparage the source rather than confront the facts at hand.  I see this all the time on this very blog.  When I post polling data favorable to the president it’s taken as gospel, but when I blog on negative data I get “Come on, you know better than to trust polling data.” Or sometimes when I blog on an article I get “Come on, you know better than to trust the liberal media,” despite the fact that if it wasn’t for the news reported in the liberal media the blogging world wouldn’t exist.  When you get good news you support the source, no matter what it is, and when it’s bad news you attack the source.

So, with that in mind, here’s the data.  The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request and looked at the autopsy reports of 44 different men who have died in US custody.  (This is out of over 100 in-custody deaths.)

Now, is this true?  This isn’t based on rumor or reports from the detainees themselves, it’s based on the autopsy reports of people who actually died.  Even if individual portions of these reports are untrue, I think that the totality of the evidence shows that there is an overt program of torture in place.  And by that I mean actual, real, traditional torture in the sense that we all know it, not the “A woman looked at me” or “My Koran got peed on” kind.

And please, if your best response to this is “You’re turning into a fucking liberal!  You hate America!  You love the ACL-Jew” then just fuck off and die in advance and save me the time of telling you later.  Attack the evidence, not the source.

Posted by Drumwaster on 10/29/05 at 06:26 PM from United States

Maybe I’m just an amoral SOB or maybe I’m just in a wartime mindset most politely described as “pragmatic”, but I really don’t have a problem with a lot of what the whiners are describing as “torture”.

I’m not saying electric clamps on the ‘nads or broken bones, mind. That kind of shit doesn’t belong and perpetrators should be prosecuted and - if convicted - punished by turning them over to their victims, blindfolded and hobbled.

But this BS about “stress positions” or sleep deprivation or loud music or other non-physical mindfucks is exactly that.

BullShit.

That having been said, whoever deliberately hurt anyone in our custody should be prosecuted to the fullest extent, and punished to the utmost limits, of the law. The last three words of that sentence are why.

Posted by HARLEY on 10/29/05 at 07:10 PM from United States

OK, i agree with ya but what happens when some of these fucks start dieing due to this “interrogation”, the kind that you approve of?
If putting one of these tangos in a stress position causes a death..then what? maybe he had a bum ticker or was just weak?......

Of these that have died at Gitmo, what are the causes? how many of these deaths can be attributed to interrogating that is “over the line”?

It would be rather disturbing to find out that any US non-com or officer beating a man to death, like that has happed in Iraq.

I’m just not willing to accept the ACLU’s assertions at face value, due to their questionable record in the past, I’m not saying that this is not happing, but this needs to be investigate by someone that would not bullshit us and have a agenda.

Posted by Drumwaster on 10/29/05 at 07:18 PM from United States

It’s simple. Mental/psychological interrogation tactics are fully acceptable. Sleep deprivation is acceptable. Uncomfortable (but not hazardous) environments - lights and noise, for example - are no problem.

Causing physical harm is a BIG fucking problem.

Posted by on 10/29/05 at 07:22 PM from United States

The press release you linked to has a link to a summary of all death reports/autopsies. You can find it here. All the deaths they describe there only refer to cases in Iraq. None of them refer to any in Guantanamo. Not to split hairs here but I see no evidence anyone being tortured in the traditional sense at Guantanamo.

Posted by Lee on 10/29/05 at 07:56 PM from United States

Not to split hairs here but I see no evidence anyone being tortured in the traditional sense at Guantanamo.

Fair enough.  But to quote the old maxim, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Just because the evidence of torture is in other US facilities does not inherently mean that there is no torture going on at Gitmo.  And I think it would be a reasonable assumption to make, given the military’s culture of uniformity, that what happens elsewhere also happens there.

Posted by Lee on 10/29/05 at 07:57 PM from United States

I’m just not willing to accept the ACLU’s assertions at face value, due to their questionable record in the past, I’m not saying that this is not happing, but this needs to be investigate by someone that would not bullshit us and have a agenda.

I couldn’t agree more.  But if there isn’t actual torture going on in Gitmo and/or other facilities, then why is the Bush administration so stridently opposing legislative measures against it?

Posted by Drumwaster on 10/29/05 at 08:04 PM from United States

But to quote the old maxim, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

That would only apply if you were trying to prove the absence of torture.

If torturing is going on and there is no evidence of it whatsoever, that does not serve as proof of its existence.

I’m willing to lean towards the “it probably happened” side, but I wouldn’t vote that way in a court of law without better evidence than I’ve seen so far…

Posted by on 10/29/05 at 08:11 PM from Japan

I think you’ll find that once a certain period of hunger striking has ellapsed, preparing the finest foods known to humanity and placing them outside the door may harm the hunger strikers more than helping them. After a few days, the appetite doesn’t work the same way, and they may not feel hunger at all. If they were to eat some of the food, having not used their digestive system for a long time it could cause excruiating pain (torture?) and possibly death.

US government policy btw, is not to let hunger strikers die, or to suffer any permanent harm (to internal organs, brain etc.) - this means that force feeding is an accepted government policy (pdf file). Some governments however, do not accept the right to intervene. Also note that hunger strikes can be seen to be petulant in the US - they are not always seen the same way in other countries.

Posted by HARLEY on 10/29/05 at 08:21 PM from United States

Honestly!?, it could be a number of things, but the most likely and certainly what seems to be the case is the Adm, is wanting to continue such operations....
Which brings up a question.
I have often heard that torture is not effective, however if it isn’t, then why its continual use? Surely not everyone that has had a hand is physical torture was psychotic and just enjoyed doing it?
IF the administration is willing to back these actions up, something must be “working right”, I do not believe that the Bush Admin would allow this to go on if it was not producing results. so what gives?

Posted by Drumwaster on 10/29/05 at 08:27 PM from United States

Also note that hunger strikes can be seen to be petulant in the US - they are not always seen the same way in other countries.

No matter how noble the goal, how pure the motive, hunger strikes are nothing more than spoiled children throwing a tantrum, trying to get public disapproval of “that mean and cruel and abusive parent” to force the (mortally embarrassed) parent to accede to the little brat’s demands.

If the government were actually as oppressive as the protests were to claim, the protests wouldn’t be happening. Period.

These are nothing more than temper tantrums by people who are grown up enough to know better.

BESIDES, this man was clearly captured in combat against the military forces of the United States. He should be happy to be offered three hots and a cot.

Posted by on 10/29/05 at 08:27 PM from Canada

So, with that in mind, here’s the data.  The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request and looked at the autopsy reports of 44 different men who have died in US custody.  (This is out of over 100 in-custody deaths.)

Lee I am not a Kool Aid drinking Bush Lover, but I would like to see the results of the autopsies on ALL Iraqi deaths in US custody.  I would also like to know how many of the ones who die of blunt force trauma to the head were recently captured.  Head injuries are not usually immediately fatal, and it is not unreasonable to assume the at least some of the detainees who die of blunt force trauma to the head may have been injured during capture.  The document makes mention of some 44 autopsies of which 21 have been ruled homicides, but it does not tell you how many Iraqi prisoners are in US custody, (a very important point as you must agree that a Sunni dying whilst being interrogated buy an Iraqi army Shia would not be the fault of the American military).  I would also like to know how many total Iraqis have died in US custody and how many total Iraqi prisoners have been taken.  I don’t disagree with you at all: torture is wrong and must not be tolerated, but if these deaths constitute a small proportion of Iraqis who die in US custody then I think it would be hard to argue that there is a that there is “an overt program of torture in place”.

Posted by Lee on 10/29/05 at 08:46 PM from United States

Snow, I couldn’t agree more.  I’m hardly going solely by the word of the ACLU.  But to my knowledge they’re the only organization that’s at least looked at the data (they were the ones who filed the FOIA request) and as such they’re the only people to go on so far.  Like I said, I’m not placing all my gees in this one basket, but I do think that while we don’t have any definite fire yet, there’s sure as hell a lot of smoke.

Posted by Lee on 10/29/05 at 08:47 PM from United States

gees = “eggs”.

Posted by Lee on 10/29/05 at 08:50 PM from United States

That would only apply if you were trying to prove the absence of torture.

If torturing is going on and there is no evidence of it whatsoever, that does not serve as proof of its existence.

Right, and Mishu pointed out that none of these cases happened at Gitmo, which he admitted was picking nits, but it goes against my original assertion that there was torture at gitmo.  In this case, absence of evidence of torture of at Gitmo is not evidence of absence of torture at Gitmo.

Posted by on 10/29/05 at 09:25 PM from Canada

Which is why I’m saying that I am leaning towards the “probably happened”, but am not convinced enough to vote “guilty” in a jury room.

Agreed.  That’s my point exactly

Well, at least no one tried to use the tired excuse that our enemies (or anyone else) are doing much worse.  I hate arguments like that.  We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than the muslim fanatics that’s why we are the god damned good guys.

Posted by on 10/29/05 at 09:48 PM from Japan

I’m not placing all my gees in this one basket

Gees= Geese

Nice. That’s another one for my list. Thanks Lee. :)

Posted by Drumwaster on 10/29/05 at 10:09 PM from United States

Which is why I’m saying that I am leaning towards the “probably happened”, but am not convinced enough to vote “guilty” in a jury room.

Posted by Lee on 10/29/05 at 10:18 PM from United States

Yeah, I’m right there with you.  I don’t think anything has been proved conclusively or anything, but there’s so much evidence I think it most likely happened.

Posted by Drumwaster on 10/29/05 at 10:20 PM from United States

Great! Now that we have that solved, let’s go find a cure for cancer… lol

Posted by on 10/29/05 at 10:29 PM from Canada

Great! Now that we have that solved, let’s go find a cure for cancer… lol

I’m already working on it.  [Nelson] HA HA [/Nelson]

Posted by on 10/29/05 at 11:23 PM from United States

FYI
Your dad probably had a feeding tube inserted thru his nose into his stomach.  For long term use it is surgically inserted thru the abdomen into the stomach.  Recovery is 5-7 days and yes, it is painful.

“ I think you’ll find that once a certain period of hunger striking has ellapsed, preparing the finest foods known to humanity and placing them outside the door may harm the hunger strikers more than helping them. After a few days, the appetite doesn’t work the same way, and they may not feel hunger at all. If they were to eat some of the food, having not used their digestive system for a long time it could cause excruiating pain (torture?) and possibly death.” Stogy

Bingo.  Right on with the light on, my man. :-)

Posted by Drumwaster on 10/29/05 at 11:29 PM from United States

If they were to eat some of the food, having not used their digestive system for a long time it could cause excruiating pain (torture?) and possibly death.

Torture? So, once he has been on that hunger strike for a few days, it’s considered torture to feed him and torture to not feed him.

No wonder I don’t give a shit about the subject. If it’s torture no matter what we do, then we might as well get some useful data out of the situation.

Posted by Lee on 10/29/05 at 11:31 PM from United States

Your dad probably had a feeding tube inserted thru his nose into his stomach.  For long term use it is surgically inserted thru the abdomen into the stomach.  Recovery is 5-7 days and yes, it is painful.

He actually had both.  Because he was ill and got better, then got worse and better and worse again he ended up having both types of feeding tubes at various times during his hospital stay.  That being said, I don’t think it’s so painful as to be considered torturous, especially considering it’s being done as a response to a self-inflicted action.

Posted by mikeguas on 10/30/05 at 08:09 PM from United States

Me, Section8

We could do this, but it might be considered torture. I’m not joking either. I could easily see a claim being made that this is belittling someone while they are starving to death, even though that choice to starve was their own.

Idiot #1, Stogy

I think you’ll find that once a certain period of hunger striking has ellapsed, preparing the finest foods known to humanity and placing them outside the door may harm the hunger strikers more than helping them. After a few days, the appetite doesn’t work the same way, and they may not feel hunger at all. If they were to eat some of the food, having not used their digestive system for a long time it could cause excruiating pain (torture?) and possibly death.

Idiot #2, Beano, responding to Stogy

Bingo.  Right on with the light on, my man. :-)

While my reason for torture was a little different, it was only a matter of time before some one came up with a reason to spin this solution as torture. Then idiot #2 joins in. Notice what is lacking from both idiots here, which is placing any responsibility on the part of the individual that started this in the first place. Keep apologizing for the radical Muslims.  Blame the US no matter what action is taken, and for you like minded lefties, keep claiming you support the troops. Oh yeah, we really buy into that one.

Next entry: Bodle Cock

Previous entry: How Can We Trust Anyone?

<< Back to main