So they would let you die? I'm not sure that's clearly more humane.
There is a range of choices - people die much sooner than they need to because they refuse blood, or people die a little quicker than they need to because they refuse painful cancer treatment.
When someone refuses to eat they'll eventually need the medical treatment - force feeding - to keep them alive. Some of those people have capacity to make that decision. Others (people with anorexia) don't.
And the U.S. does not recognize a "right to death" for anyone in the U.S. You can argue about that policy, but the Guantanamo detainees are not being treated inconsistently there. Our policies are strongly anti-suicide across the board. See: http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/guantanamo-is-not-an-an....
Wow, that is incredibly misinformed. And even if it were true (it is not), it does not justify torture. Torture is always despicable, and there's a permanent moral stain on the nation that perpetrates torture, no matter who is being tortured. There is no excuse. No excuse.
Is this like the debate on climate change? Where 99.99% of the scientists agree it's man made, yet a few others think it's natural.
> It's not a settled issue like you're making it out to be.
Yeah, I think it's pretty much settled by everyone but the US government.
He wanted to show us the degree to which it is or isn't torture.
These prisoners were tortured and deprived of habeas corpus. Without a fair trial it's fair to question anything regarding their detention. Seeing it as kidnapping seems quite reasonable.
And Guantanamo prisoners are getting habeas petitions heard: http://ccrjustice.org/GTMOscorecard. It's not happening fast enough, and partly for logistical reasons (no U.S. state wants to host trials for them and foreign countries don't want them back), but it is happening.
In a world historical sense, such treatment is a mercy; in total war, the only alternative, of course, is to kill the detainees.
GTMO represents a great moral failing of the United States, but let's also not forget that the USG is the lesser of two culpable parties; the greater responsibility lies with an irregular army that deliberately exploits its civilian host population to conceal itself, relying on the fact that retaliation will inevitably harm more innocents than fighters. The Taliban isn't the Viet Cong. The cause of the Taliban and "Al Qaeda" (whatever that means) is a lost one, fueled entirely by an obscene willingness to see thousands of innocent people murdered solely prolong the inevitable.
1) Many (most) weren't "caught" doing anything, other than going about their business. The majority were kidnapped from airports.
2) "Allied forces"? We white. Them black. Therefore them bad. Try to see the world from a perspective other than your own.
3) "War zone" - no it wasn't. It became a warzone after most of those in Gitmo were disappeared. That's like saying that what happened to jewish people before WWII was fine because it became a war zone.
4) It's not a characterisation, it's exactly what it is, if you interpret the situation through the Geneva convention, which the US is inexplicably a party to.
2. By "allied" he meant "NATO". There are plenty of "black" people in NATO.
3. Afghanistan was in fact a war zone long before 2001. At its most orderly, under the brutal control of the Taliban, it was a loosely organized state embroiled in a civil war destined to produce a breakaway non-Pashto state. Also: the word "disappeared" means something specific, and you dilute that meaning by using it here. The "disappeared" of Central and South America are so named because they're never heard from again; they're often murdered by death squads.
4. Nothing in the Geneva Conventions speaks to the definition of "kidnapping".
I think few things would want to make me take up arms more against an invader than the false imprisonment of myself or my family at GTMO for said act.
So kidnapping people and torturing them makes you enemies? Who would have thought...
One needn't support GTMO, or even tolerate it, to acknowledge the fact that our adversaries in this conflict are both real and despicable.
Can a man who's warm understand one who's freezing?
If you want to pursue a line of argument that leaves you sticking up for the Taliban, that's your prerogative, but I don't think doing so will strengthen any case you have to make about the US.
None of these things are black and white.
2. I meant black and white from the polar point of view. Germany and Italy were allies.
3. Yup, but plenty of these guys ain't from the 'stans, and Afghanistan was self contained. The history of conflict in Afghanistan is long and bloody, and rarely bought about by Afghanis - usually empires looking for resources and an enviable bit of geography.
4. No, but it talks about the lawful taking and holding of POWs, which, operating outside of such, makes Guantanamo a criminal enterprise in international law, and it's actions therefore being nothing more than kidnapping.
QED.
The US government has a tremendous credibility problem.
Its representatives make many claims, trying to spin the narrative in their favor. Some people seem to buy much of this narrative. They apparently believe the stories that governments, spy agencies, police, torturers, and PR hacks spin.
It is impossible to know whether such a position of credulity is genuine or merely apologetic. But it should be noted that many others in the world don't believe the spin. They've witnessed the government, spy agencies, police, torturers, and PR hacks caught in too many self-serving lies.
Some people apparently choose to believe alleged testimony given by helpless people who've been tortured in a prison they may never leave, or testimony given by secret sources before a kangaroo court, or the testimony of spies who are essentially professional liars. These people have zero credibility for the rest of us. Yet their narrative is swallowed by others and then presented as uncontrovertable fact: "Many of them were in fact armed combatants" Oh yeah? Says who? Says who who has a shred of credibilty? Prove it. Prove it without resorting to a witch trial before a rubber-stamping kangaroo court that brings shame to the United States and the world.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/former-s...
You, on the other hand, are guilty of providing moral support for this travesty.
It upsets me a little to see discussions about things like GTMO distracting themselves from the core issue. The problem isn't detention at GTMO, or drone strikes, or the citizenship status of targets. To engage yourself fully with any of those problems is to nibble around the edges of the real issue.
The problem is that in 2001, Congress issued a declaration of war (that's what the AUMF was) against an ideology. At the time, that might have seemed sensible; a way to take the threat of armed terrorism more seriously than we had. But the problem with it is obvious and it's something Obama is facing down now: you can't eradicate an ideology, which leaves us in a permanent state of war.
If we'd declared war against Afghanistan, the status of prisoners at GTMO would be clearer; we'd at some point declare the conflict over (we'd have to, because contra the Daily Kos left, the USG does not actually want to station hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan) and the prisoners would be released.
"(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
The AUMF refers to prevention of "future acts of international terrorism" but specifically authorizes force only against those who were involved with the 9/11 attacks.
The problematic word is "organizations". The most important lesson we should learn from the 2000s is "never allow the word 'organizations' (or any of its synonyms) to appear in an AUMF again". You can invade a nation, you can kill a person, but there's simply no clear definition of what it means to eradicate an organization.