Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Just let them starve to death...problem solved.
40 of them have recently been proven totally innocent and soon to go home. Were 600 in 2009, now 166.
Pubs HAVE blocked bringing them to the US. Total mindless obstruction and then complain about it!! Bye in 2014...
You're a fucking mindless toady apologist for a failed President and his entire administration.
Yes.
I was in the bed next to someone who had a tube inserted voluntarily a few years ago. Frankly, waterboarding sounds a lot less painful to me.
The U.S. military has been force-feeding some of the detainees, a practice described as torture by some of those previously subject to it. Today, the UN’s commissioner for human rights weighed in, his spokesperson saying that “if it's perceived as torture or inhuman treatment -- and it's the case, it's painful -- then it is prohibited by international law.” The stance, he explained, is based on a 1991 declaration by the World Medical Association that forced feeding is “never ethically acceptable.”
Will the Nobel Peace Prize winning president who promised the U.S. wouldn’t torture stop torturing? Or will he use his own definition of torture, as his predecessor George W. Bush did? Or will he and his apologists just ignore it, like every other promise broken and right violated by this president?
President Obama Won?t Just Close Gitmo, But Will He Stop the Torturing? - Hit & Run : Reason.com
I was in the bed next to someone who had a tube inserted voluntarily a few years ago. Frankly, waterboarding sounds a lot less painful to me.
President Obama Won?t Just Close Gitmo, But Will He Stop the Torturing? - Hit & Run : Reason.comThe U.S. military has been force-feeding some of the detainees, a practice described as torture by some of those previously subject to it. Today, the UNs commissioner for human rights weighed in, his spokesperson saying that if it's perceived as torture or inhuman treatment -- and it's the case, it's painful -- then it is prohibited by international law. The stance, he explained, is based on a 1991 declaration by the World Medical Association that forced feeding is never ethically acceptable.
Will the Nobel Peace Prize winning president who promised the U.S. wouldnt torture stop torturing? Or will he use his own definition of torture, as his predecessor George W. Bush did? Or will he and his apologists just ignore it, like every other promise broken and right violated by this president?
Tube through the nose is a common medical BENEFICIAL thing. It's done all the time across the country. IT IS NOT A TORTURE METHOD.
Shut up with your dumbass notion that waterboarding seems nicer. Waterboarding makes you feel like death is imminent from drowning. Tube through the nose does no such thing.
I don't have a problem with forcing adequate nutrition to a detainee through a tube in his nose if he won't eat any other way. Waterboarding is in a whole different league.
You know what I said today when I was doing some paperwork? "This is torture." But any idiot knows the difference. I guess you're just an extra special kind of idiot.
Yes.
So you don't have a problem that a guy that thinks we should apply high voltage electricity to their genitals loves the idea of force feeding them?
By they way, what do you think about the concept of consent? Do you think people should be able to refuse medical treatment, or do you think everyone should be forced to submit to your will because you are smarter than they are?
I was in the bed next to someone who had a tube inserted voluntarily a few years ago. Frankly, waterboarding sounds a lot less painful to me.
The U.S. military has been force-feeding some of the detainees, a practice described as torture by some of those previously subject to it. Today, the UNs commissioner for human rights weighed in, his spokesperson saying that if it's perceived as torture or inhuman treatment -- and it's the case, it's painful -- then it is prohibited by international law. The stance, he explained, is based on a 1991 declaration by the World Medical Association that forced feeding is never ethically acceptable.
Will the Nobel Peace Prize winning president who promised the U.S. wouldnt torture stop torturing? Or will he use his own definition of torture, as his predecessor George W. Bush did? Or will he and his apologists just ignore it, like every other promise broken and right violated by this president?
President Obama Won?t Just Close Gitmo, But Will He Stop the Torturing? - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Tube through the nose is a common medical BENEFICIAL thing. It's done all the time across the country. IT IS NOT A TORTURE METHOD.
Shut up with your dumbass notion that waterboarding seems nicer. Waterboarding makes you feel like death is imminent from drowning. Tube through the nose does no such thing.
I don't have a problem with forcing adequate nutrition to a detainee through a tube in his nose if he won't eat any other way. Waterboarding is in a whole different league.
You know what I said today when I was doing some paperwork? "This is torture." But any idiot knows the difference. I guess you're just an extra special kind of idiot.
Irrelevant. The pain is not the issue.Of that I have no doubt.We do it dozens of times a day in our hospitals; never a problem. OP has shit for brains.
You cannot find a single hospital in the US that force feeds anyone that is legally competent. It is a violation of ethical standards of the AMA, and actually is covered by WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment, which was issued in 1975.
WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment
Don't worry though, I am an idiot.
By the way, I actually opposed water boarding on this board, and have flat out said I do not want the government to be able to use any form of torture, even if it will save lives. That means that I am being intellectually consistent.
What you're describing is an NG tube procedure by which liquid nutrition is introduced to the digestive track through a tube that goes through the nose (Naso) and into the stomach (Gastric). We do this for comatose, sedated, or patients who have acute injuries that prevent them from eating foods conventionaly.
As for the amount of pain involved, you are, in fact, ignorant. There is hardly any pain at all as I have had this done to me before. When I was in nursing school--we actually did it on each other in the class. In that environment, it hurt the administrator more than it hurt the "patient". BTW...I had my voice box photographed the other day...and I lived to tell about it.
You know, it may just be possible that Obama does some things that aren't blatantly evil.
I did not refute that. I just stated that the whole line about painful or not swallowing is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with ethics or legality of the action. All that is in question is whether or not force feeding someone against their will fits that criteria.Imagine the same procedure if you are tied to a bed, resisting the the attempt to hold your head steady, and refusing to swallow when the tube reaches your esophagus.
This is really irrelevant though. You cant argue that this was cruel and unusual treatment. That is clearly not the case. If I gathered your point correctly, it is more a matter of forcing a medical treatment on one that does not want it. As I stated before, I have no problem withholding the treatment if they dont want it and I have to agree that there is no reason or justification for us to do so.
All that really needs to be presented is the fact that they were on a hunger strike and then they were force fed food through a tube to circumvent it.
It is considered unethical and is often used as a form of torture. It may even violate international law, I am not sure about that one.
?Imagine the same procedure if you are tied to a bed, resisting the the attempt to hold your head steady, and refusing to swallow when the tube reaches your esophagus.
This is really irrelevant though. You cant argue that this was cruel and unusual treatment. That is clearly not the case. If I gathered your point correctly, it is more a matter of forcing a medical treatment on one that does not want it. As I stated before, I have no problem withholding the treatment if they dont want it and I have to agree that there is no reason or justification for us to do so.
All that really needs to be presented is the fact that they were on a hunger strike and then they were force fed food through a tube to circumvent it.
Enemy combatant | Define Enemy combatant at Dictionary.com
You catch em in he act you can damn sure kill em.
Ever have a tube shoved up your nose and into your stomach?
I was in the bed next to someone who had a tube inserted voluntarily a few years ago. Frankly, waterboarding sounds a lot less painful to me.
President Obama Won?t Just Close Gitmo, But Will He Stop the Torturing? - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Tube through the nose is a common medical BENEFICIAL thing. It's done all the time across the country. IT IS NOT A TORTURE METHOD.
Shut up with your dumbass notion that waterboarding seems nicer. Waterboarding makes you feel like death is imminent from drowning. Tube through the nose does no such thing.
I don't have a problem with forcing adequate nutrition to a detainee through a tube in his nose if he won't eat any other way. Waterboarding is in a whole different league.
You know what I said today when I was doing some paperwork? "This is torture." But any idiot knows the difference. I guess you're just an extra special kind of idiot.
It is a torture method when it is done to a competent person who does not consent, just like water boarding is not torture when it is done to a competent, consenting person.
I did not refute that. I just stated that the whole line about painful or not swallowing is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with ethics or legality of the action. All that is in question is whether or not force feeding someone against their will fits that criteria.
Tube through the nose is a common medical BENEFICIAL thing. It's done all the time across the country. IT IS NOT A TORTURE METHOD.
Shut up with your dumbass notion that waterboarding seems nicer. Waterboarding makes you feel like death is imminent from drowning. Tube through the nose does no such thing.
I don't have a problem with forcing adequate nutrition to a detainee through a tube in his nose if he won't eat any other way. Waterboarding is in a whole different league.
You know what I said today when I was doing some paperwork? "This is torture." But any idiot knows the difference. I guess you're just an extra special kind of idiot.
It is a torture method when it is done to a competent person who does not consent, just like water boarding is not torture when it is done to a competent, consenting person.
Waterboarding IS torture when done to a consenting person. Consent doesn't change how waterboarding works. Nearly all the people who have consented to have it done to them to see what it was like, have agreed that it is indeed torture. Even the people who have been harping previously that it was NOT torture.
This is just one of many of those blowhards. He drowned as a child, and had to be revived, and he says it was exactly like that.
branches of our military undergo waterboarding, with consent. Because it's understood to be torture, and they have to learn how to deal with it. Navy Seals or UDTs like Jesse Ventura who underwent it, say it is torture. Even consenting.
Would you like to undergo being drawn and quartered... consenting to it? I'm sure it wouldn't be torture for you, since you're consenting.
It is perfectly legal to tie a person to the wall and use a whip on them, beat them unconscious, choke them, and even cut pieces of their skin off, all of which would be considered torture, as long as they consent to it in advance.
A "feeding chair" in the Guantanamo medical wing where hunger-striking detainees are
force fed. Sgt. Brian Godette, Army 138th Public Affairs Detachment
Military photographs show guards throwing away uneaten food and the "feeding chair" where detainees are force-fed.
For more than two weeks, 100 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba have been on hunger strike to protest conditions at the prison and their indefinite confinement. First denied and downplayed by the military, the strike has now become a full-blown emergency, as the Huffington Post's Ryan J. Reilly reports:
It is perfectly legal to tie a person to the wall and use a whip on them, beat them unconscious, choke them, and even cut pieces of their skin off, all of which would be considered torture, as long as they consent to it in advance.
I think there are people who will PAY to have that done to them.
More: Photos: Stark Scenes From the Guantanamo Hunger Strike | Mother Jones
A "feeding chair" in the Guantanamo medical wing where hunger-striking detainees are
force fed. Sgt. Brian Godette, Army 138th Public Affairs Detachment
Military photographs show guards throwing away uneaten food and the "feeding chair" where detainees are force-fed.
For more than two weeks, 100 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba have been on hunger strike to protest conditions at the prison and their indefinite confinement. First denied and downplayed by the military, the strike has now become a full-blown emergency, as the Huffington Post's Ryan J. Reilly reports:
By that definition, every prisoner in the country who is currently interred somewhere is being tortured if they want to leave and can't?Irrelevant. The pain is not the issue.Of that I have no doubt.You cannot find a single hospital in the US that force feeds anyone that is legally competent. It is a violation of ethical standards of the AMA, and actually is covered by WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment, which was issued in 1975.
WMA Declaration of Tokyo - Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment
Don't worry though, I am an idiot.
What you're describing is an NG tube procedure by which liquid nutrition is introduced to the digestive track through a tube that goes through the nose (Naso) and into the stomach (Gastric). We do this for comatose, sedated, or patients who have acute injuries that prevent them from eating foods conventionaly.
As for the amount of pain involved, you are, in fact, ignorant. There is hardly any pain at all as I have had this done to me before. When I was in nursing school--we actually did it on each other in the class. In that environment, it hurt the administrator more than it hurt the "patient". BTW...I had my voice box photographed the other day...and I lived to tell about it.
You know, it may just be possible that Obama does some things that aren't blatantly evil.
What you are all missing is the idea of this being a torture method has nothing to do with pain. It has to do with the complete removal of free will. It is a pretty terrible thing when you lose even the ability to choose to feed yourself or not.
As soon as we start beneficially waterboarding patients in the hospital, I'll agree with you.BTW, he provides you with a credible source declaring such a practice was unethical and amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment while you have provided nothing. You do realize that Bush used that same defense; he claimed that we did not commit torture because he decided that waterboarding did not fit the definition. You bought that, didnt you?
I did not refute that. I just stated that the whole line about painful or not swallowing is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with ethics or legality of the action. All that is in question is whether or not force feeding someone against their will fits that criteria.
I love how the conservatives are suddenly all siding with the United Nations.
They've become the individuals concerned with the welfare of the detainees, simply because they see political advantage, not because it remains consistent with their policies of the past.
As long as the tube feeding is not done to induce pain, agony, weight gain or adverse health effects, and is simply used to maintain nourishment... I'm fine with it.
Conservatives would rather these people starve themselves to death, than get a chance to go to trial and possibly be released because of invalid or non-existent charges.
"A starving Muslim is a good Muslim!"
