Lite Beer Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 US judge unseals Guantanamo Bay force-feeding tapesA US judge has ordered the government to release videotapes depicting a Guantanamo Bay prisoner being force-fed while on hunger strike.US District Court Judge Gladys Kessler granted a request from a number of media organisations for their release.The videos show Syrian prisoner Abu Wa'el Dhiab being forcibly removed from his cell and fed.But the tapes will remain sealed until some information, including faces and voices, has been redacted."We are very gratified by this decision, which will enable the American people to see with their own eyes the sorts of abuses that are being heaped on these peacefully hunger-striking detainees," Mr Dhiab's lawyer Jon Eisenberg told the Associated Press news agency."Once the truth is fully brought to light, we believe these terrible practices will come to an end." Read More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29485205 -- BBC 2014-10-04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chicog Posted October 4, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted October 4, 2014 One can only hope it was a bacon sandwich. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovetotravel Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Having lost a friend in the WTC, and seeing his family suffer greatly, I've no sympathy for those involved in terrorism against innocent civilians. Zero. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ulysses G. Posted October 4, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted October 4, 2014 Regular prisoners in America are force-fed if they refuse to eat. Why not a bunch of Islamic terrorists? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post neverdie Posted October 4, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted October 4, 2014 Regular prisoners in America are force-fed if they refuse to eat. Why not a bunch of Islamic terrorists? Too right ! Pity they don't force feed those grubs pork anus sandwiches. No doubt the doo gooders would of been jumping up and down if they let them starve to death. I've got a good idea, you want to go on hungr strike, be our guest, but please lay in this coffin first & allow us to nail the lid on it and drop it into a hole, save someone lifting ur carcus later fool. good riddance. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Regular prisoners in America are force-fed if they refuse to eat. Why not a bunch of Islamic terrorists? Too right ! Pity they don't force feed those grubs pork anus sandwiches. No doubt the doo gooders would of been jumping up and down if they let them starve to death. I've got a good idea, you want to go on hungr strike, be our guest, but please lay in this coffin first & allow us to nail the lid on it and drop it into a hole, save someone lifting ur carcus later fool. good riddance. Why waste the effort, he'd be a lot lighter once he's gone to get his 72 virgins. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JockPieandBeans Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 "We are very gratified by this decision, which will enable the American people to see with their own eyes the sorts of abuses that are being heaped on these peacefully hunger-striking detainees," Mr Dhiab's lawyer Jon Eisenberg told the Associated Press news agency. What a <deleted> cracking statement that one is. I truly hope the Mr Jon Eisenberg is on the next Gitmo Herc to join the rest of the peaceful hunger strikers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tchooptip Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 One can only hope it was a bacon sandwich. Right precisely It was liquefied ham sandwiches since they were tube fed through the nose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgal Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Regular prisoners in America are force-fed if they refuse to eat. Why not a bunch of Islamic terrorists? Regular US prisoners are under US laws. Guantanamo prisoners are not under US or UN law. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JockPieandBeans Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Regular prisoners in America are force-fed if they refuse to eat. Why not a bunch of Islamic terrorists? Regular US prisoners are under US laws. Guantanamo prisoners are not under US or UN law. And your point is ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgal Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Regular prisoners in America are force-fed if they refuse to eat. Why not a bunch of Islamic terrorists? Regular US prisoners are under US laws.Guantanamo prisoners are not under US or UN law. And your point is ? Whatever you do to them is unlawfull and unconstitutional. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JockPieandBeans Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 USA bringing democracy, justice and civilisation to the world !Not even worthly of a comment. Subversive war tactics have been trained by the French in the 60's after Algerian independency war. Classroom was filled with Americans and future South American death squads. Why denying the past and the results of today ? Jesus H Christ. Only from the 60's. Get with the programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Regular prisoners in America are force-fed if they refuse to eat. Why not a bunch of Islamic terrorists? Regular US prisoners are under US laws.Guantanamo prisoners are not under US or UN law. And your point is ? Whatever you do to them is unlawfull and unconstitutional. If they are not under US law, how can this be unconstitutional. The Constitution and US laws don't extend beyond the US. How can a US court order something that isn't under it's control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Numerous troll posts and replies have been removed. Please stay on topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Regular prisoners in America are force-fed if they refuse to eat. Why not a bunch of Islamic terrorists? Regular US prisoners are under US laws.Guantanamo prisoners are not under US or UN law. And your point is ? Whatever you do to them is unlawfull and unconstitutional. That's the exact reason that there is a Gitmo. The minute they set foot on US soil they get all of the rights of US laws and the Constitution. Until they do, they are prisoners of war under the military and whole different set of rules apply. There was talk of converting a US prison for that use and the people, especially of that state, had a fit. Few people want those prisoner brought onto US soil and tried in civilian courts. That would be a security nightmare, a huge expense and a media circus. NOW some do-gooders want to know about them being fed rather than let them starve to death. To avoid the wrath of those idiots I suppose you'd have to just let them decide to starve and then bury them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Regular US prisoners are under US laws.Guantanamo prisoners are not under US or UN law. And your point is ? Whatever you do to them is unlawfull and unconstitutional. If they are not under US law, how can this be unconstitutional. The Constitution and US laws don't extend beyond the US. How can a US court order something that isn't under it's control? The Federal Courts have jurisdiction over the Military and can order the tapes. They don't have jurisdiction over a non-citizen who isn't on US soil. The military has that jurisdiction. So there are checks and balances there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copa8 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Having lost a friend in the WTC, and seeing his family suffer greatly, I've no sympathy for those involved in terrorism against innocent civilians. Zero. Same here...except quite a few on this forum seem to be ok with those involved in terrorism against innocent civilians in Xinjiang, China. They claim they are "freedom fighters". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 This topic is about a US court proceeding. It's not about China or US foreign policy in general. There are numerous topics where those discussions can occur. This isn't one of them. Stick to the topic, please. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye21 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Prisoners captured by the other side have to worry about be heading, not being kept alive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkcanuck8 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I just cannot figure out why someone would intervene and force feed people that are starving themselves to death (except in the case of mental illness) as a form of protest. If I were on the other side of the table - I would say - fine.... problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inbangkok Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> Having lost a friend in the WTC, and seeing his family suffer greatly, I've no sympathy for those involved in terrorism against innocent civilians. Zero. Regular prisoners in America are force-fed if they refuse to eat. Why not a bunch of Islamic terrorists? Lets completely ignore the fact that multiple people have been held in Guantanamo for years, and then released without ever being charged of any crime, much less terrorism. This is a simple fact. Argue it and twist it however you want, but it is indeed a fact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LawrenceChee Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Force feeding is akin to the production of the foie dish...it's cruel way to treat another human being irregardless of their beliefs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) I agree Mr. Chee. Letting them starve to death is much more humane. Edited October 18, 2014 by chuckd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijb Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Force feeding is akin to the production of the foie dish...it's cruel way to treat another human being irregardless of their beliefs You think they're being force-fed because of their beliefs?! How do reconcile their role in suicide bombings and beheadings? A cry for help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LawrenceChee Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Force feeding is akin to the production of the foie dish...it's cruel way to treat another human being irregardless of their beliefs You think they're being force-fed because of their beliefs?! How do reconcile their role in suicide bombings and beheadings? A cry for help? How do we claim the high moral ground if we use the same barbaric methods they engage in ? We need to be consistent... No ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijb Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 I rank beheadings as more barbaric than force-feeding. Who uses 'high moral ground' for dealing with fanatics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LawrenceChee Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Human rights, respect for humanity are all good reasons why this is unacceptable, if we go rogue with our methodology , we encourage this smaller group of fanatics to have examples to hit back at a bigger scale and recruit more fanatics This is why it's a more difficult fight for the countries that want to have the reputation of the freedom of choice , speech, protection and human rights and not thugs. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABCer Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 LawrenceChee, - No! High moral grounds are incompatible with high grounds for artillery fire. High moral grounds are a losing position in a war with immoral people. As to this OP topic I would say 'force feeding' is more humane than: - no feeding at all - feeding only salted herring and no water - squashing man's balls - gang raping women repeatedly - hot iron in the groin - or... simply a beheading. Ooops, I am afraid I'm a 'troll' again... Sorry, meds. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgal Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 I think you're right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now