Haunting Account of Gitmo Forcefeeding (Warning: Graphic description)

All humans have the right to defend themselves when accused of crimes. If we Americans don't recognize that truth, then we don't deserve to lead the world.

If you want to deny people their legal rights on the basis of actions they supposedly committed, then you merely have to demonstrate in a fair trial that they committed those actions. Otherwise, there is literally no limit on the government's ability to take people's freedom away.

 

what international law are you referring to? This person is not an American.

 

Gitmo is an abomination to everything the US and Western Civilization stands for. I understand these people are monsters and might very well deserve all the torture they are receiving, but shirking principle and moral standards just to get petty revenge? Might as well replace the Constitution with Hammurabi's Code.

 

the reason for its existence is not revenge.

 

I'm torn on this as we already kill more people and innocent civilians on the battlefield than most other countries and will continue to do so as our gloabal standing permits.

If torturing them affords intel to reduce American casualties and limit civilian deaths on foreign battlefields, then it's an uncomfortable topic I'm willing to consider.

I fully admit it's not an enlightened stance.

 

I believe the right to a fair trial is a human right; denying that to anyone, citizen or foreigner, betrays America's founding principals and undermines our credibility.

But if you want a legal basis, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which has been ratified by the US) is relevant.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13212&LangID=E

 

Interrogation under duress is not any more reliable than regular interrogations.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011...orture-doesnt-produce-useful-information.html

It is nothing more than petty revenge and torture. We are above that. We don't have to make their prison lives comfortable, but torture is unethical no matter how you spin it.

 

You can discuss morality if you want, but above you said 'legal right'. That's not morality but legality. Speaking morally, I can tell you prisoners of war are rarely given a trial (though that doesn't make it right or wrong).

What part of the ICCPR do you think says we must give prisoners of war a trial? We give them military tribunals which is far more just than what most countries in the UN give their own citizens.

What you call torture I call interrogations. They have gotten us lots of information.

You can keep saying it and it still won't be true. Gitmo does not exist for revenge purposes. IT exists because we have nowhere else to put these prisoners of war. No state or territory wants them.

 

And from that display of "interrogation" countless more have joined Al Qaeda. When you have CIA, FBI, and military higher ups claiming that interrogations at GITMO have hurt more than helped then there is something wrong.

 

You have no solid proof of that. Anyways you could put the POWs in a holiday inn and Al Qaeda would still make of crap about how badly they are treated. Here is a study claiming 92% of Afghans don't even know what 9/11 was. I am sure they know the truth about Gitmo.....

I've heard plenty of intelligence sources that claim otherwise. Do i really need to do a Google search for some?

 

Regardless of the effectiveness of the interrogations do you really not believe in fundamental human rights? Torture is cruel and unusual punishment, something that Americans have fought and died to abolish and now everyone is ok with it because someone else is receiving the brunt of the torture?

Does the end really justify the means?

 

Not Torture. Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) with tons of rules.

Above you said Americans fought to end the practices at Gitmo, but I know of no time when Americans fought to end the practice of waterboarding for 10 seconds (or anything similar). What are you referring to?

 

Cruel and unusual punishment.
You can't possibly say that waterboarding ISN'T cruel and/or unusual?
There is a reason why we don't use these techniques on US prisoners, because its unconstitutional.

 

You don't? After it was used on Americans by the Japanese in WWII they made sure that it wasn't allowed.

 

Cruel implies you do something for the sole purpose of causing someone pain. The purpose here is not to cause anyone pain but to protect Americans by getting information. If the pain didn't lead to information then it would not be administered. So no not cruel.

As for unusual, I don't understand what that is suppose to mean. The electric chair was unusual when it first was used. Same with the gas chamber. Everything is unusual the first time it's done. As the article above says, waterboarding was done on American service men first before implemented on terrorists.

true. Americans have rights that non-Americans don't. It wouldn't be unconstitutional as non-Americans aren't protected by the Constitution.

 

should lay this obscure debate about the legal issues to rest...

by that same logic, figure out what should happen to the Gitmo guards.

 

Well according to tallanvor if the "special interrogation methods" benefit us its all ok. No human rights violated.

 

Yea, let's call someone a terrorist

And then based on the fact that we accused him of being a terrorist, we can now deny him of his rights....

Great logic.