• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gitmo inmate: My treatment shames American flag [W:508,759]

Yeah, and that's why I stated it was done as an emergency medical with rehydration. Feinstein embellished there quite a bit.

The point is rectal FEEDING is torture/EIT or degradation or humiliation or punishment - take your pick. It's not a medical procedure or done for medical purposes. No solid food is digested in the large intestine.

While rectal hydration may be used in emergency situations, it’s not the first-, second- or even third-best option, said Allen Keller, director of the Bellevue/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture.....snip~

You left off the relevant portion of that quote: Where Rectal Feeding Came From and How the CIA Used It - Bloomberg

“This [rectal feeding]was done not solely for therapeutic reasons but as another form of abuse or humiliation,” Keller said. “Given the circumstances, this is sodomy with the intention of humiliation under the guise of medical treatment.”

If it was hydration, it was still almost surely done for degradation/humiliation, but still potentially (barely) plausible that the reason was medical purposes. Not so with solid food. It's simply NOT remotely plausible that's the procedure we would use if the person actually needed (for medical reasons) to be force fed.
 
Who did he murder? When was he convicted?

Is he a citizen of the USA?

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that says POWs need to be treated with any sort of rights/humanity/what-have-you is the geneva convention and the USA clearly can give two craps about the Geneva convention.

IOW, does the USA even have to convict enemies of war? Can it not simply just do whatever to the enemy of the state? Unlike them, we have rights, but they don't, they're not part of the USA in any way.
 
I understand it is a hard choice to make.....but it does get easier if one includes family or those who mean the most to them.

That is false.....the Demos cherry picking a few cases doesn't tell the story and is not factual. ISIS killed over 5400 people last month alone. They have killed over 20k since June. Well over 20k. Which doesn't count AQ or Al nusra. Nor Ansar al Sharia.

Just like they listed down rectal feeding.....what they didn't tell you. Was it, had nothing to do with Interrogation. Or any EIT's, it was medical that it had to be done to save their lives. It also wasn't the only means in getting them rehydrated. They had IVs in too.

Rectal feeding is not a medical 'thing'. It was done as punishment. You know...torture.
 
My question is, what does someone do to get into Guantanamo Bay.

Depends. Some of them are the worst of the worst. What many of the others did (most now released) to 'get' there was pretty much nothing except have the bad fortune of being someone a bounty hunter targeted for no particular reason.

And if they do sell their souls to get their, why should I feel sorry for them in any way? Why should I want to keep them safe in any way? Why should I care about their non-existent rights?

They're called 'human rights' for a reason, and there was a time in this country when we gave a damn about them - even those of our enemies.

It takes a lot to get into that place it seems. Outside of getting the wrong person, I can't see why there's anything wrong with what goes in on Guantanamo Bay considering the evil beings that get put in there.

That's a caveat big enough to drive an 18 wheeler through.

Plus, it's intel gathering on the enemies of the USA, so it serves a practical purpose.

So, if a U.S. citizen is detained by Iran, with no charges, trial, etc. for 15 years, you're good with that?
 
Let me help you out.

Showing someone pornography isn't torture in my book. Pouring gasoline down someone's throat and setting her ablaze is torture. Cutting off someone's ears and legs before killing them is torture. Taking a knife and slowly cutting someone to bits is torture.

To you pornography is torture.

My post was clear. And very brief.

Ok. Three things:

1). The examples you provided are not torture in the context we are using here. Torture in gitmo is a series of particularly gruesome tactics designed to break a person down mentally/physically in an attempt to force them to give up information needed by the US Government. Whatever that might be. Killing your prisoner does not achieve that goal, it's just murder. Thus "shoving gasoline down their throat and setting them ablaze" is not a torture tactic.

2). There are two major types of torture. Physical and mental. You don't have to leave a scratch on the body to torture a man. In fact, some might say breaking the mind is worse than breaking the body.

3). I will repeat myself: the bizarre pornography was just one out of a dozen torture techniques outlined in the article.
 
Is he a citizen of the USA?

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that says POWs need to be treated with any sort of rights/humanity/what-have-you is the geneva convention and the USA clearly can give two craps about the Geneva convention.

IOW, does the USA even have to convict enemies of war? Can it not simply just do whatever to the enemy of the state? Unlike them, we have rights, but they don't, they're not part of the USA in any way.

Interesting that your 'libertarian' understanding of 'rights' is they flow being a citizen of the U.S. If that's the basis for a 'right' they're not rights at all but privileges granted by government that can be rescinded at will.
 
Is he a citizen of the USA?

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that says POWs need to be treated with any sort of rights/humanity/what-have-you is the geneva convention and the USA clearly can give two craps about the Geneva convention.

IOW, does the USA even have to convict enemies of war? Can it not simply just do whatever to the enemy of the state? Unlike them, we have rights, but they don't, they're not part of the USA in any way.

"Unless you live in 'murica, you don't have no rights."
 
The point is rectal FEEDING is torture/EIT or degradation or humiliation or punishment - take your pick. It's not a medical procedure or done for medical purposes. No solid food is digested in the large intestine.



You left off the relevant portion of that quote: Where Rectal Feeding Came From and How the CIA Used It - Bloomberg



If it was hydration, it was still almost surely done for degradation/humiliation, but still potentially (barely) plausible that the reason was medical purposes. Not so with solid food. It's simply NOT remotely plausible that's the procedure we would use if the person actually needed (for medical reasons) to be force fed.


Who said they put food in there? Where did you get that? Is it in the report this food was stuffed up into their intestines? Feinstein said Rectal feeding.

Seems you left off some too.


Central Intelligence Agency interrogators made clear that the practice, justified as a way to hydrate prisoners who refused to eat, wasn’t simply for their health. It was identified as a means of “behavior control” by CIA medical officers that could hasten the end of hunger strikes, according to the documents.

While IV infusion is safe and effective, we were impressed with the ancillary effectiveness of rectal infusion on ending the water refusal in a similar case,” one of the officers wrote, according to an executive summary of the 6,000-page report, originally approved in December 2012 and now declassified. The same officer described how the procedure was carried out: “Regarding the rectal tube, if you place it and open up the IV tubing, the flow will self-regulate, sloshing up the large intestines,” he wrote.....snip~
 
Ok. Three things:

1). The examples you provided are not torture in the context we are using here. Torture in gitmo is a series of particularly gruesome tactics designed to break a person down mentally/physically in an attempt to force them to give up information needed by the US Government. Whatever that might be. Killing your prisoner does not achieve that goal, it's just murder. Thus "shoving gasoline down their throat and setting them ablaze" is not a torture tactic.

2). There are two major types of torture. Physical and mental. You don't have to leave a scratch on the body to torture a man. In fact, some might say breaking the mind is worse than breaking the body.

3). I will repeat myself: the bizarre pornography was just one out of a dozen torture techniques outlined in the article.

1) I never said anything otherwise.

2) I never said anything otherwise.

3) I don't believe there is a rule on this board that says I'm required to address everything mentioned in a post or a link when I respond. If I was making a point about animal abuse, and posted a long article that said "Cats are burned. Cats are hit with objects. Cats are shot. Cats are hung by their tails. Cats are declawed.", and someone responded by saying something about declawing and asking if that's torture, I wouldn't be ignorant enough to accuse that poster of being a psychopath, or even demanding to know why the poster didn't address the other points in the article.

I don't consider pornography to be torture. I don't owe anyone an explanation for that, nor do I owe anyone an explanation as to why that's the only thing I posted.
 
I wouldn't normally let a guy like that get me an infraction... but it just seemed so disrespectful.

It reminds me of how people had questions about Nazi Germany, and how normal people could have been coo opted into tolerating horrible things.

One can really build a psychological wall when threatened that makes no logical sense to the outside world. And that's what I see happening with this whole torture thing.
 
3) I don't believe there is a rule on this board that says I'm required to address everything mentioned in a post or a link when I respond.

LOL (what a thing to say outloud). "I don't think I'm required to actually read the whole posts or take them in context". No, unfortunately that's not required.

If I was making a point about animal abuse, and posted a long article that said "Cats are burned. Cats are hit with objects. Cats are shot. Cats are hung by their tails. Cats are declawed.", and someone responded by saying something about declawing and asking if that's torture, I wouldn't be ignorant enough to accuse that poster of being a psychopath, or even demanding to know why the poster didn't address the other points in the article.

If someone said a cat was burned, hit, shot, hung, and declawed, and you said "declawing is torture now"... yeah that would fit the bill.
 
Who said they put food in there? Where did you get that? Is it in the report this food was stuffed up into their intestines? Feinstein said Rectal feeding.

Seems you left off some too.


Central Intelligence Agency interrogators made clear that the practice, justified as a way to hydrate prisoners who refused to eat, wasn’t simply for their health. It was identified as a means of “behavior control” by CIA medical officers that could hasten the end of hunger strikes, according to the documents.

While IV infusion is safe and effective, we were impressed with the ancillary effectiveness of rectal infusion on ending the water refusal in a similar case,” one of the officers wrote, according to an executive summary of the 6,000-page report, originally approved in December 2012 and now declassified. The same officer described how the procedure was carried out: “Regarding the rectal tube, if you place it and open up the IV tubing, the flow will self-regulate, sloshing up the large intestines,” he wrote.....snip~

So if they did use food, would you consider that torture?

Because:

"One CIA cable released in the report reveals that detainee Majid Khan was administered by enema his “‘lunch tray’ consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts and raisins was ‘pureed and rectally infused’”. One CIA officer’s email was in the report quoted as saying “we used the largest Ewal [sic] tube we had”."
 
So, if a U.S. citizen is detained by Iran, with no charges, trial, etc. for 15 years, you're good with that?

No I'm not, we would have to rescue them, just like if we detained someone from Iran without trial they would have to rescue them.

That's the extremely unfortunate reality, no matter what an international law says, the POW is ultimately at the mercy of the captor.
 
I recently came across this article of Samir Naji's 13 year incarceration at Gitmo. Obviously, this is a pretty convienent time for him to tell the tales of his cruel and unusual punishment. Which made me think; isn't that exactly what's being clamed here? Cruel and unusual punishment on United States territory. I've heard from my professor that an obvious consequence of closing Gitmo would be that if we brought these inmates back to the United States we would have to give them due-process. Well...I may be mistaken, but last time I checked, Guantanamo Bay is United states territory. I found it interesting how this man's story was written. Check it out if you wish to.

Gitmo inmate: My treatment shames U.S. flag - CNN.com

You may find it interesting how the story was written, but I find it more interesting to know why it was written. Who gives a damn what this thing has to say.

Boo Hoo. This moron needs to go screw himself. You know who starts and ends their day in a little ball, the survivors of the innocents who jumped to their death with thoughts of their loved ones counting down the moments before they exploded on the pavement below. The list goes on.

I can only hope these people will find a speedy result in Evolutions attempt to remove them from the gene pool.
 
You may find it interesting how the story was written, but I find it more interesting to know why it was written. Who gives a damn what this thing has to say.

Boo Hoo. This moron needs to go screw himself. You know who starts and ends their day in a little ball, the survivors of the innocents who jumped to their death with thoughts of their loved ones counting down the moments before they exploded on the pavement below. The list goes on.

I can only hope these people will find a speedy result in Evolutions attempt to remove them from the gene pool.

What did that guy have to do with 9/11?

Oh yeah. Mooslim. They're all to blame.
 
No I'm not, we would have to rescue them, just like if we detained someone from Iran without trial they would have to rescue them.

That's the extremely unfortunate reality, no matter what an international law says, the POW is ultimately at the mercy of the captor.

But of course that's not the point. We would expect/demand that our citizens get due process - a trial, etc. By saying we'd engage in a military act to rescue them is just a reflection of what we would demand and how far we'd go to enforce that demand. But you're saying we have no obligation to do what we'd demand of others.
 
"Unless you live in 'murica, you don't have no rights."

I did not say that.

Obviously, if you're a tourist in the USA you have rights and such. As a POW however, your rights are nearly non-existent and that is fine because the loser is naturally always at the mercy of the victor. Fighting the USA is a choice, and being utterly brutal to Americans and other people is also a choice.
 
You may find it interesting how the story was written, but I find it more interesting to know why it was written. Who gives a damn what this thing has to say.

Boo Hoo. This moron needs to go screw himself. You know who starts and ends their day in a little ball, the survivors of the innocents who jumped to their death with thoughts of their loved ones counting down the moments before they exploded on the pavement below. The list goes on.

I can only hope these people will find a speedy result in Evolutions attempt to remove them from the gene pool.

All that you really needed to say.
 
I did not say that.

Obviously, if you're a tourist in the USA you have rights and such. As a POW however, your rights are nearly non-existent and that is fine because the loser is naturally always at the mercy of the victor. Fighting the USA is a choice, and being utterly brutal to Americans and other people is also a choice.

Who knows what the hell went on in Gitmo bay...it is the word of the incarcerated..and the job of their jailers to deny it..
 
What did that guy have to do with 9/11?

Oh yeah. Mooslim. They're all to blame.

If you read the story, he was on OBL's security detail. F him. He's non-human, so anything they did to him is fine with me. As far as I'm concerned, he stayed in a 5 star resort for all those years, in comparison to what he and his fellow maggots did.

And you can park the Mooslim strawman where the sun don't shine. I don't care what it's religion or culture is.
 
If you read the story, he was on OBL's security detail. F him. He's non-human, so anything they did to him is fine with me. As far as I'm concerned, he stayed in a 5 star resort for all those years, in comparison to what he and his fellow maggots did.

And you can park the Mooslim strawman where the sun don't shine. I don't care what it's religion or culture is.

So somehow being a low level guy assigned to a security detail means he's responsible for 9/11? Well, since I guess we cant actually prosecute the Saudi's who helped create all those guys (they sell us cheap oil! Great guys!) we need to find some scapegoat.
 
I did not say that.

Obviously, if you're a tourist in the USA you have rights and such. As a POW however, your rights are nearly non-existent and that is fine because the loser is naturally always at the mercy of the victor. Fighting the USA is a choice, and being utterly brutal to Americans and other people is also a choice.

You're assuming that those we stripped of rights, jailed, subjected to torture or "EIT" were in fact "utterly brutal to Americans" and that was often just not the case. The point of rights is in fact to give the person the meaningful opportunity to show that he or she in fact wasn't 'utterly brutal.." It's what separates us from Stalin.
 
So if they did use food, would you consider that torture?

Because:

"One CIA cable released in the report reveals that detainee Majid Khan was administered by enema his “‘lunch tray’ consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts and raisins was ‘pureed and rectally infused’”. One CIA officer’s email was in the report quoted as saying “we used the largest Ewal [sic] tube we had”."



It goes back to my original argument about terrorists and saving lives.



He admitted that some CIA officers' actions were "not authorized, were abhorrent and rightly should be repudiated by all. And we fell short in holding some officers accountable for their mistakes.".....snip~


Disgrace: Senate Democrats' Flawed, Reckless CIA Interrogation Report.....

What did this accomplish? It may fire up the lefty base and sate ideologues' political bloodlust after a brutal election, but this issue isn't a major advantage to posturing Democrats. Why? Americans overwhelmingly believe that "torture" is sometimes justified:
torture2.png


Disgrace: Senate Democrats' Flawed, Reckless CIA Interrogation Report - Guy Benson
 
Back
Top Bottom