Tortured to ... Life.
It's hardly new news, but many news agencies (like CNN) reported in September 2005 that, "Since August 8, the number of detainees [at Guantanamo Bay] refusing food has slowly increased from several dozen to 128, according to the Pentagon. Eighteen prisoners are in medical facilities forcibly receiving nutrition intravenously or through nasal tubes, Pentagon officials said."
Well, force feeding these inmates who swore to die in prison is tantamount to torture ... apparently.
The Seattle P-I reported on February 14 that "A U.N. investigation has found that the United States committed acts amounting to torture at Guantanamo Bay, including force-feeding detainees and subjecting them to prolonged solitary confinement, according to a draft report obtained Monday."
Ahem. If I may be direct ... What?! Since when have solitary confinement and forced nourishment been tantamount to torture? I guess all grounded teenagers in their room can rejoice; according to international precedent, they are being tortured. Seriously, however, solitary confinement for extended periods hardly counts as torture. These people are in prison and it makes sense that some seclusion is necessary for coercion and plain old punishment. By any definition, solitary confinement is not torture.
As for being force fed, I again point out that many detainees swore to die in Guantanamo Bay. These people could have valuable information and we really can't just let them die. That would be even worse publicity than saving their lives by giving them nourishment intravenously.
Even if these people are being tortured by these policies, I would agree with Charles Krauthammer. In deference to the McCain Amendment, there appear to be two instances in which torture is warranted.
The first instance is the "ticking time bomb." A captured terrorist has vital information about an attack. As Krauthammer put it: " Ethics 101: A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. It will go off in one hour. A million people will die. You capture the terrorist. He knows where it is. He's not talking. Question: If you have the slightest belief that hanging this man by his thumbs will get you the information to save a million people, are you permitted to do it?" My answer is to take action in order to save countless lives.
The second instance is when you have a "slow fuse terrorist" who has information about a terrorist attack or plot in the future. Unfortunately, we can't just ask the people at Guantanamo Bay if they are slow fuse terrorists, so it seems to make sense to me to keep them alive until we can find out. In doing so, the United States has been accused of torture. I refer to my original question ... What?
Well, force feeding these inmates who swore to die in prison is tantamount to torture ... apparently.
The Seattle P-I reported on February 14 that "A U.N. investigation has found that the United States committed acts amounting to torture at Guantanamo Bay, including force-feeding detainees and subjecting them to prolonged solitary confinement, according to a draft report obtained Monday."
Ahem. If I may be direct ... What?! Since when have solitary confinement and forced nourishment been tantamount to torture? I guess all grounded teenagers in their room can rejoice; according to international precedent, they are being tortured. Seriously, however, solitary confinement for extended periods hardly counts as torture. These people are in prison and it makes sense that some seclusion is necessary for coercion and plain old punishment. By any definition, solitary confinement is not torture.
As for being force fed, I again point out that many detainees swore to die in Guantanamo Bay. These people could have valuable information and we really can't just let them die. That would be even worse publicity than saving their lives by giving them nourishment intravenously.
Even if these people are being tortured by these policies, I would agree with Charles Krauthammer. In deference to the McCain Amendment, there appear to be two instances in which torture is warranted.
The first instance is the "ticking time bomb." A captured terrorist has vital information about an attack. As Krauthammer put it: " Ethics 101: A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. It will go off in one hour. A million people will die. You capture the terrorist. He knows where it is. He's not talking. Question: If you have the slightest belief that hanging this man by his thumbs will get you the information to save a million people, are you permitted to do it?" My answer is to take action in order to save countless lives.
The second instance is when you have a "slow fuse terrorist" who has information about a terrorist attack or plot in the future. Unfortunately, we can't just ask the people at Guantanamo Bay if they are slow fuse terrorists, so it seems to make sense to me to keep them alive until we can find out. In doing so, the United States has been accused of torture. I refer to my original question ... What?
posted by Matt Pitchford at 10:08
1 Comments:
Great post. I loved this part, "Since when have solitary confinement and forced nourishment been tantamount to torture? I guess all grounded teenagers in their room can rejoice; according to international precedent, they are being tortured."
The media will try to twist anything.
Post a Comment
<< Home