• 'Gitmo is killing me': Inmate describes horror of being force-fed by tube
    147 replies, posted
[QUOTE=scout1;40296240]Well yes but it's the difference between a circuit court issuing a divorce order and a man throwing away his wedding ring claiming he doesn't need to pay child support. Only one of them gets you out of the shit, and it has some regulations as opposed to independent third parties making decisions for you.[/QUOTE] imo it's a bit silly that the only difference is the amount of power they have
[QUOTE=Juniez;40296213]imo it's a bit silly that the only difference is the amount of power they have[/QUOTE] Well yes but it's the difference between a circuit court issuing a divorce order and a man throwing away his wedding ring claiming he doesn't need to pay child support. Only one of them gets you out of the shit, and it has some regulations as opposed to independent third parties making decisions for you.
[QUOTE=scout1;40296240]Well yes but it's the difference between a circuit court issuing a divorce order and a man throwing away his wedding ring claiming he doesn't need to pay child support. Only one of them gets you out of the shit, and it has some regulations as opposed to independent third parties making decisions for you.[/QUOTE] I disagree because the husband probably has no idea how child support works (and is probably doing it for his own financial gain), while doctors make studies and reach conclusions based off the studies because they learned a whole bunch on that stuff (and therefore are qualified to make those statements) doctors are just as qualified as the UN to make decisions on human rights (at least regarding physical / medical stuff), it's just that they don't have the power to do so sometimes
[QUOTE=Juniez;40296299]I disagree because the husband probably has no idea how child support works (and is probably doing it for his own financial gain), while doctors make studies and reach conclusions based off the studies because they learned a whole bunch on that stuff (and therefore are qualified to make those statements)[/QUOTE] Well I guess if you want to get into how lawmaking works then doctors I'd say would have a good idea of the effects of force feeding, but laws... well. Doctors don't make laws. Not to say they CAN'T, they just generally don't. Now appying some sort of objectivity to it might be possible and of course I think would be a good basis for a law. But really what I was trying to get at with that analogy is that the WMA does not represent the American voting sector or, indeed, wholly Americans. As an international organization made up of professionals of one trade it really doesn't get to tell nations what to do.
A detail that I've noticed a bunch of people have missed when talking about this so I'm just gonna plop it down here for further consideration: [QUOTE]“I will never forget the first time they [B]passed the feeding tube up my nose.[/B] I can’t describe how painful it is to be force-fed this way,” [/QUOTE] It's not just shoved down the throat.
[QUOTE=Rhenae;40299001]A detail that I've noticed a bunch of people have missed when talking about this so I'm just gonna plop it down here for further consideration: It's not just shoved down the throat.[/QUOTE] The reason why this is done is to not stimulate the gag reflex that humans have.
Just going to put my 2 cents in. All of the prisoners at Gitmo are often in a "Grey area POW", which allows them to detain them without trial, and since It isn't in mainland America: they can do a shitton of things that would otherwise be viewed as illegal.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;40299510]The reason why this is done is to not stimulate the gag reflex that humans have.[/QUOTE] I can imagine it would also be a lot more painful than just a thing down your throat
Well, that's the end of the scout1 discussion then. Let's all agree that it's currently 'legal', but on a moral grounds disgusting. [editline]16th April 2013[/editline] And good god, is this horrible. What material is the tube made of? When the suffragettes had hunger strikes, they allegedly used solid metal.
[QUOTE=Rhenae;40299585]I can imagine it would also be a lot more painful than just a thing down your throat[/QUOTE] It depends on the person it's being done on. It's either really painful or feels "really weird". We practiced putting nose airways in on each other and mine hurt like a bitch, others not so much. Also the material is made of flexible plastic, it's lubed up pretty good prior to insertion.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40295876]So scout1 adheres ardently to the law. Meanwhile, everyone else is talking about how shoving a tube up someone's throat and then pumping gruel into their stomach is unethical. But it's not written down in a law book. So it's okay. No, you ignorant bastard, it's not okay. Put yourself into their position - you're locked up in a facility in Cuba, and they strap you down and force a tube up your throat and then start pumping food into you. Would you be okay with that? Would you be okay seeing that happen to a family member? Would you be okay with that happening to ANYONE? It's disgusting behavior. Legality doesn't matter. If legality was all that mattered, you could be stoned to death in Saudi Arabia for being gay and it would be A-OK because the law of the land is supreme to all. You'd just sit there and take it. No, that's fucking ridiculous, there are some things that are universally considered barbaric and force-feeding is way up there. It's not a matter of law, it's a matter of human decency and ethics. You can't simplify this stuff into law. Again, if this was okay to you, we could drop you into a discussion in the Middle East and have you arguing in favor of homosexuality. You'd be executed. The end. BUT it's the law for them to do that so it's perfectly acceptable. You are unbelievable. Law is secondary to ethics.[/QUOTE] he's arguing semantics and picking at straws, he does this pretty much in every thread hence the perma
Obama was naive in thinking that the place could be shut down. I mean, if you're gonna be imprisoning foreigners (some of which are very dangerous), you gotta have a place to keep them. And Gitmo serves that purpose very well, albeit inhumanely. What would anyone else do, put a terrorist prison on mainland USA soil?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;40299691]It depends on the person it's being done on. It's either really painful or feels "really weird". We practiced putting nose airways in on each other and mine hurt like a bitch, others not so much. Also the material is made of flexible plastic, it's lubed up pretty good prior to insertion.[/QUOTE]I've had it done and it just felt uncomfortable, as in weird and not pleasurable. No pain at all. Probably depends on the size of your nasal airways (I do have a good sized conk), but considering that nurses do this regularly to their patients, many of them conscious, it can hardly be considered torture. My 81 year old Dad also had to have nasal intubation recently. I'm probably not taking him to the Court of Human Rights to protest against the NHS for torture, though he was quite rude to the nurse (he's quite rude to everyone tbh). Is it ethical to force a prisoner to be intubated ? No. It's a violation of their Human Rights. In the UK we had Irish Catholic hunger strikers in prison in 78 and 81 (10 died of starvation) see here [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Irish_hunger_strike[/url]. We have always known force feeding to be against human rights. Intubation isn't 'torture' though. It's part of a medical treatment with the view of keeping the patient alive and in good health. Sometimes medical treatments are uncomfortable. Another interesting question, for the sake of ethics, is whether the intubation was performed by medical staff. Not sure forced intubation conflicts with the Declaration of Geneva anyway, but would be interesting to know who was administering the treatment and how they were trained.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;40291506]How can this place still exist? So much illegal shit seems to happen there and yet nothing at all seems to be done about it. Or is it because most prisoners there are "sub-human scum" as believed by the public?[/QUOTE] Largely because there is no such thing as international law and nothing illegal is likely occurring. They are POW's without a host nation and with crime scenes in ridiculously dangerous locations. Trials are impossible, and many are legitimately dangerous people, so release is also ill advised. They aren't necessarily forgotten, they are simply stuck in this gap where nobody knows what else to do with them. Some literally have lost citizenship in their home nations and wouldn't be welcomed back. So people can complain all they want, but it is either this or execution. I'd love to hear alternatives, but nobody ever seems to have a remotely viable or realistic plan for what to do with the detainees.
[QUOTE=GunFox;40300652]Largely because there is no such thing as international law and nothing illegal is likely occurring. They are POW's without a host nation and with crime scenes in ridiculously dangerous locations. Trials are impossible, and many are legitimately dangerous people, so release is also ill advised. They aren't necessarily forgotten, they are simply stuck in this gap where nobody knows what else to do with them. Some literally have lost citizenship in their home nations and wouldn't be welcomed back. So people can complain all they want, but it is either this or execution. I'd love to hear alternatives, but nobody ever seems to have a remotely viable or realistic plan for what to do with the detainees.[/QUOTE] Dump them in Australia like it's 1800
[QUOTE=Rollup;40300607]I've had it done and it just felt uncomfortable, as in weird and not pleasurable. No pain at all. Probably depends on the size of your nasal airways (I do have a good sized conk), but considering that nurses do this regularly to their patients, many of them conscious, it can hardly be considered torture. My 81 year old Dad also had to have nasal intubation recently. I'm probably not taking him to the Court of Human Rights to protest against the NHS for torture, though he was quite rude to the nurse (he's quite rude to everyone tbh). Is it ethical to force a prisoner to be intubated ? No. It's a violation of their Human Rights. In the UK we had Irish Catholic hunger strikers in prison in 78 and 81 (10 died of starvation) see here [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Irish_hunger_strike[/url]. We have always known force feeding to be against human rights. Intubation isn't 'torture' though. It's part of a medical treatment with the view of keeping the patient alive and in good health. Sometimes medical treatments are uncomfortable. Another interesting question, for the sake of ethics, is whether the intubation was performed by medical staff. Not sure forced intubation conflicts with the Declaration of Geneva anyway, but would be interesting to know who was administering the treatment and how they were trained.[/QUOTE] The medical staff performing the intubations are Corpsman and Nurses. Corpsman are trained through an intense 5 month medical school to lay the foundation for which many years of OJT follow. Nursing staff are trained at their respective colleges and then are granted a comission.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40291531]On the other hand, they're not in Saudi Arabia being tortured daily. [editline]15th April 2013[/editline] Not justifying this place, but there are places much worse.[/QUOTE] No it just sounds like one of the worst places you can find yourself in.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;40301655]The medical staff performing the intubations are Corpsman and Nurses. Corpsman are trained through an intense 5 month medical school to lay the foundation for which many years of OJT follow. Nursing staff are trained at their respective colleges and then are granted a comission.[/QUOTE] Well this does seem to me to be a medical procedure, and can't really be considered as torture. As I said earlier, it is an infringement of Human Rights, and I do struggle with Western hypocrisy in criticising those rogue states that routinely breach Human Rights while sanctioning, albeit comparatively minor, breaches themselves. [editline]16th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Gekkosan;40301709]No it just sounds like one of the worst places you can find yourself in.[/QUOTE] Well, I'm glad that it isn't like a holiday camp. There are some nasty mofos in there.
Id like to point out that they could either force feed the prisoners which is unethical or they could let them starve to death which is also unethical.
[QUOTE=Little;40301984]Id like to point out that they could either force feed the prisoners which is unethical or they could let them starve to death which is also unethical.[/QUOTE] or they can...idk...feed them normally
[QUOTE=Little;40301984]Id like to point out that they could either force feed the prisoners which is unethical or they could let them starve to death which is also unethical.[/QUOTE]Nothing unethical about providing food for consumption and them not eating it. They were on hunger strike. Unless of course they suffered from diminished responsibility and sectioned, when it would be unethical not to restrain and force feed them. [editline]16th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;40302005]or they can...idk...feed them normally[/QUOTE] !!!! They were feeding them normally in the sense that they were provided with food. Are you suggesting they should use a fork to force feed them ? That gets very messy.
Well now that Scout1 is perma'd... I honestly can't believe how complacent Americans have gotten about its own government. Asides from the crazy conservatives who are mad at the government for things like welfare existing or some embarrassing reason. Heck those people would call gitmo critics anti American
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;40302005]or they can...idk...feed them normally[/QUOTE] Explain how you feed someone on hunger strike normally? They are on hunger strike, they aren't eating. You don't want them to die on you. Conclusion: force feeding (it's a lot harder to not eat something pumped straight to your stomach after all!).
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40291531]On the other hand, they're not in Saudi Arabia being tortured daily. [editline]15th April 2013[/editline] Not justifying this place, but there are places much worse.[/QUOTE] that's not even fucking relevant
[QUOTE=hexpunK;40302428]Explain how you feed someone on hunger strike normally? They are on hunger strike, they aren't eating. You don't want them to die on you. Conclusion: force feeding (it's a lot harder to not eat something pumped straight to your stomach after all!).[/QUOTE] maybe not subject them to conditions that will prompt them to start a hunger strike in the first place the solution here is to say "we fucked up we're going to treat you all like humans now" and go from there
[QUOTE=Zeke129;40305595]maybe not subject them to conditions that will prompt them to start a hunger strike in the first place the solution here is to say "we fucked up we're going to treat you all like humans now" and go from there[/QUOTE] Oh yeah this is the right way to go about it, I was just wondering how he thinks they can feed people who are on hunger strike "normally".
[QUOTE=Stopper;40292952]The people who allow this place to exist are the scum of the Earth.[/QUOTE] I don't see mass protests by u.s citizens being made. i'll try to organize one but i need help.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.