Althouse: "Will the United States keep these detainees alive for 12 years against their will?"

May 3, 2013

"Will the United States keep these detainees alive for 12 years against their will?"

"If 12 years sounds too long, then what is an appropriate amount of time to keep a prisoner alive by tube feed? Is this torture?"

It's suicide prevention.

50 comments:

chickelit said...: I'll bet they shit their pants too--out of spite.

Let us free! We're innocent!; 5/3/13, 6:00 PM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: It's suicide prevention.

And it's in our interests to prevent this why?

( Assuming we've finished waterboarding any useful information we can out of them. ); 5/3/13, 6:04 PM
Bill, Republic of Texas said...: The U.N. Human Rights Commission has said in the past that forced feeding constitutes torture and violates international law.

Obama is a torturer. Get thee to the streets!

What no? Ah it was all just a bunch of moral preening for political gain. Gotcha.; 5/3/13, 6:05 PM
edutcher said...: Oh, yes, keep them alive. Just to annoy them.

They'll really hate that.

And so will the Lefties.

It's a win-win-win.; 5/3/13, 6:11 PM
harrogate said...: Just sad shameful business for the US; 5/3/13, 6:14 PM
harrogate said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/3/13, 6:14 PM
Seeing Red said...: That was the old US - the voters voted 2x to fundamentally transform the country, we are no better or worse, so shaming or clucking won't work.; 5/3/13, 6:20 PM
Andy said...: Bush is worried about traveling to Europe because they might arrest him for torture.

Maybe the same will be true for Obama when he's done being President.; 5/3/13, 6:25 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: It seems to me we might just announce that we are going to hold these guys until Al Qaeda surrenders, 5 years from the last attack, or someone putting up sufficient surety, say $20 million apiece, against recidivism.

But it is true that we can hold enemy combatants at least until the end of hostilities, which those of us in Boston know have not ended. Even if they have committed no crime.

If that seems hopeless to the Gitmo detainees, it's because they believe the conflict will go on indefinitely.; 5/3/13, 6:29 PM
Richard Dolan said...: "It's suicide prevention."

Where is Justice Kennedy and his notion of each person's right to define for one self the truthy goodness of life, or was it the good life's truthiness? Whatever. If dying to achieve the new life, to say nothing of all those virgins, is your goal, who are we to say you can't do it?

Someone should call in the multi-culti cops. Or at least a good lawyer.; 5/3/13, 6:34 PM
rhhardin said...: Put a dog in with them so the food isn't wasted.; 5/3/13, 6:54 PM
Anonymous said...: So this is why Obama is suddenly talking about closing Gitmo.; 5/3/13, 7:02 PM
dreams said...: Why not let them starve themselves to death?; 5/3/13, 7:03 PM
Methadras said...: I say let them do it. If they choose not to eat, they are doing it willingly. Oh well.; 5/3/13, 7:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Just sad shameful business for the US

So harrogate "caterwauls" or "spews" to use his subtle manner of framing speech he disagrees with.

harrogate: Of course it's sad. It's war, not patticakes.

What's your solution?

You do know that if released some of these detainees will return to their business of killing Americans or others, as has already occurred.

Or is that a mere distraction to your moral preening, while accusing others of same?; 5/3/13, 7:10 PM
kentuckyliz said...: The law does not require an absolute prevention of suicide. You can intervene and provide care, but it is not illegal to fail to prevent someone from suiciding.; 5/3/13, 7:12 PM
Anonymous said...: I say let them do it. If they choose not to eat, they are doing it willingly.

Methedras: I don't have a problem with this either.

Here's what Thatcher said after Bobby Sands of the IRA starved himself to death in a British prison.

Mr. Sands was a convicted criminal. He chose to take his own life. It was a choice that his organisation did not allow to many of its victims; 5/3/13, 7:15 PM
Icepick said...: It's torture. Just line the shits up against a wall and throw loaded pressure cookers at 'em.; 5/3/13, 7:19 PM
Icepick said...: It's a win-win-win.

Michael Scott has spoken!; 5/3/13, 7:19 PM
Anthony said...: We should pack all the Guantanamo prisoners onto planes, send them back to their home countries, then announce that we've done so because they've provided all the useful intelligence they're going to provide.

Which is true - even if they did know something 11 years ago, it's not useful information anymore. It also will prevent them from being threats to the U.S. in the future, especially if we emphasize that they provided us intelligence.; 5/3/13, 7:36 PM
Bender said...: Because detaining a war criminal in the first place is all about getting intelligence from them, and not about (1) being at war and (2) them committing war crimes.

Just let them go. Especially Khalid Sheik Mohammed.; 5/3/13, 7:45 PM
tim maguire said...: First, screw the UN, I care not for their views on the subject. but hunger strikes are political protests, not suicide.

Sometimes protestors are force fed, other times they are allowed to die. If there is a moral framework behind the state's decision whether or not to intervene, I don't know what it is.; 5/3/13, 8:07 PM
Ann Althouse said...: The question here is whether preventing suicide (this brutally) is legally permitted, not whether its required.

Our govt is choosing to do it and being accused of torture.; 5/3/13, 8:08 PM
Synova said...: Hunger strikes only work because they work. If they didn't work no one would do them.; 5/3/13, 8:11 PM
Sam L. said...: One other thing, Anthony, we should tell their countries they told all to Israeli intelligence. Naturally, they won't believe us, but they will wonder, and wonder, and wonder.; 5/3/13, 8:14 PM
Synova said...: "Our govt is choosing to do it and being accused of torture."

Think of what we'd be accused of if we let them die.

We're America and we're going to be cast the villain no matter what we do and I really wish that Mr. Hope-and-Change and his sycophants had the first clue about that. He promised to shut the place down and has done nothing. It's like he thought the job was going to be easy or something. But he hasn't bothered to come up with a solution, likely because all solutions make us look bad. He needs to pick one.

It's his JOB.; 5/3/13, 8:21 PM
chickelit said...: One way to counter the outpouring of sympathy and grief for the 100 or so detainees would be to publish the charges against the 100 or so whom Hamblin asserts cannot all be mentally ill. Most decent people react with disgust at the panty-melting the Brothers Tsarnaev seem to induce because the images of what they are accused of are so fresh. If some of the detainees are likewise monsters, we need to be reminded. If they were lesser accessories, we should know that too.; 5/3/13, 8:23 PM
cassandra lite said...: It's great being an American and figuring out how the "international community" and oikophobes in our borders will react to everything. Whatever is in America's best interest will be opposed. And protested. I wish there was a way to monetize this knowledge.; 5/3/13, 8:24 PM
JackWayne said...: "The question here is whether preventing suicide (this brutally) is legally permitted, not whether its required. Our govt is choosing to do it and being accused of torture."

Dear Ann, this is just food boarding. Unlike water boarding, both righties and lefties approve of food boarding. So it must be legal. Right?; 5/3/13, 8:25 PM
Bob_R said...: "The question here is whether preventing suicide (this brutally) is legally permitted, not whether its required.

Our govt is choosing to do it and being accused of torture."

As usual, the semantic argument about the word "torture" is purposely being used to distance ourselves from the essential moral question.

Is it morally correct to force-feed this particular group of people to prevent their suicide? Answer that and forget abstract questions about the meaning of "torture." (I'm siding toward yes, but lining them up against a wall and shooting them has its attractions.); 5/3/13, 8:42 PM
tiger said...: Let them die.

Or don't.

Either way they are vermin looking to kill anyone who doesn't believe as they do.

On second thought - yeah let them die.; 5/3/13, 8:47 PM
Richard Dolan said...: "The question here ...."

There are many questions here. The 'torture' one isn't very interesting.; 5/3/13, 8:50 PM
eelpout said...: If we don't torture & imprison innocent Muslims, how will the bad Muslims ever fear us?; 5/3/13, 9:02 PM
Unknown said...: "If that seems hopeless to the Gitmo detainees, it's because they believe the conflict will go on indefinitely."

They KNOW the conflict will go on indefinitely. What Westerners don't understand about jihad is that people committed to it consider themselves dead already. They commit to death and expect it and even love it. We are the ones who don't accept death and they know it's a way to manipulate us.
It's working.; 5/3/13, 9:05 PM
test said...: Republican said...
If we don't torture & imprison innocent Muslims, how will the bad Muslims ever fear us?

It's funny how becoming a useful tool to criticize America somehow guarantees innocence.; 5/3/13, 9:11 PM
Jason said...: So who's got seats on the UN Human Rights Council these days, anyway? LULZ!!; 5/3/13, 9:40 PM
Jason said...: Ah, here are the current members!

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.aspx

Among them are Venezuela, Germany (how's that homeschooling coming along, Himmler?), Angola, Argentina, Chile, Congo, Kazakhstan, Libya (term started under Ghadaffi), Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates. Yeah, I couldn't give a rat's ass about what that body has to say about how we do business vis. Al Qaeda illegal combatants.; 5/3/13, 9:45 PM
FullMoon said...: I believe the Boston bombing came the day after NYT published a prisoners' letter(translated by a defense lawyer) protesting the conditions. Recently a Gitmo defense lawyer committed suicide. Was there any connection?; 5/3/13, 10:14 PM
virgil xenophon said...: My solution is to ship 'em all to Kodiak Island to provide sport for the Bears. We could make a reality TV series out of it by mounting CCTV remote cameras all over the island. Poor Bears gotta eat, ya know..; 5/3/13, 10:30 PM
glenn said...: It's suicide prevention.

Why?; 5/3/13, 10:33 PM
Dante said...: I don't see the torture in it. Knock them out if the feeding tube is uncomfortable.

Real pain is left to God. The pain of cancer having spread to the bones. Ever hit your shin really hard? Imagine that pain in all your bones. I learned that from Wit;; that play justifies the the semi-colon, in my mind.; 5/3/13, 10:37 PM
Unknown said...: Their body their choice. I saw that somewhere. Why doesn't it apply here?; 5/3/13, 10:38 PM
Unknown said...: Their body their choice. I saw that somewhere. Why doesn't it apply here?; 5/3/13, 10:38 PM
Dante said...: And normally I would say "Let them die," in a Ron Paul-esque fashion. But You can't handle the truth.

Not you, Ann. You can handle it, I suppose.; 5/3/13, 10:39 PM
Carnifex said...: Damn! The rag heads wanna off themselves, the lawyers wanna off themselves...it's a win-win!; 5/3/13, 10:40 PM
Bob Ellison said...: Reactions to this are binary:

harrogate said "Just sad shameful business for the US".

dreams said "Why not let them starve themselves to death?"

Lefties find it easy to hang their heads in shame for their fellow humans and countrymen. It's a quick and prideful thing to say "we are not worthy".

Righties have to muscle up to say "he needs killing".

The different forces in automatic responses from left and right account for much in modern American politics. It's easy to be left. You can be proud of it. It's difficult to be right. You should be ashamed, and you'd better have your facts and arguments all lined up.; 5/4/13, 7:37 AM
Rusty said...: I don't much care what they do. Feed em . Let em starve.
I do know that if the roles were reversed the other side would, with religious fervor and great glee, use our heads for soccer balls.; 5/4/13, 8:31 AM
Anonymous said...: I wouldn't bother. If they don't want to eat, let them not eat. Keep making food available, but let them make their choice.

Or blame mental illness and extend that diagnosis to all practitioners of the that faith. I think you must be crazy to join it and believe in their teachings.; 5/4/13, 8:34 AM
ilvuszq said...: They got into Guantanamo by choosing wrong. Not eating or drinking is another choice.; 5/4/13, 9:04 AM
ed said...: Let them suicide. Hell let's encourage them to suicide.

Even better let's fit them with suicide vests and then remotely detonate them so they'll feel right at home.; 5/4/13, 2:13 PM