home

84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 02:05:38 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Since Christmas day, the number of detainees at Guantanamo on a hunger strike has increased to 84.

Forty-six detainees at the prison for foreign terrorism suspects at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, joined the protest on the key Christian holiday last Sunday, said Army Lieutenant Colonel Jeremy Martin, a military spokesman.

...Medical personnel were force-feeding 32 of the hunger strikers with plastic tubes inserted into the stomach through the nose, the military said. Asked the purpose of the force-feeding, Martin said: "Because our policy is to preserve life."

If the policy is to preserve life, why is there a death penalty?

Of the approximately 500 inmates at the prison, only 9 have been charged with a crime.

Lawyers for some of the detainees call the strike a protest of the conditions in which the prisoners are being held and their lack of legal rights....Detainees are willing to starve to death to demand humane treatment and a fair hearing on whether they must stay at the prison, the lawyers said.

< Handicapping 2006 | UK Torture Documents Online >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike | 44 comments (44 topical)
    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 03:15:30 PM EST
    Et al - From the post we are led to believe that only 9 have been charged with a "crime." Yet we know from this that over 500 have received tribunals and found to be an enemy combatants. Can anyone explain the disconnect? Do we have 9 that are charged with individual crimes, with the remaining 491 plus mere enemy combatants? And if this correct, what would you have us do with the enemy combatants? After all, we know from this that some released have returned to their previous occupation and been killed in combat or recaptured.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#2)
    by Darryl Pearce on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 04:31:14 PM EST
    ...better to die on the battlefield instead of wasting away in the forgotten quasi-limbo of a self-admittedly outside-the-law detention facility. It's not about them, Jim. It's about us. I find it very upsetting that this administration--for our own good--is willing to lie to us and break its own laws. It's a very... abusive relationship.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:09:54 PM EST
    Well Jim? Lucy is waiting for her 'splaining. I wanna hear this one, too.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 05:51:13 PM EST
    dadler. I am also waiting for Lucy's explanation. In the meantime you might study the links. Neither of which, I speculate, will be refuted by either dadler or charlie. I mean beyond the usual, "The Government Lies." Real hard hitting that one is. And neither of you have explained to me why the post says "9 crimes" charged and ignores the fact that, like it or not, these men have been found to be enemey combatants. Many, though not all, have been captured on the battlefield. Does that mean that you think that being an enemy combatant does not require them to be confined? Well, we did release some, and some came back. Evidently they take their jihad seriously. Too bad you don't take them that seriously. BTW - Lucy just channeled me and said to remind you that these folks' trubunals receive two reviews, and then an annual review to determine their current status. She wouldn't want you to think these sweethearts are being mistreated. In that context, enemy combatants, we used to call'em guerillas, hostorically were tried and promptly hanged or shot. Makes me say these folks have it very, very, good.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 06:24:57 PM EST
    All secret bullsh*t, Jim. We have no way of knowing anything the government tells us to be true about Gitmo, about the prisoners, any of it. This is not wartime like WWII, our nation is not under attack, we are not going to be occupied and defeated by a foreign army. East Germany called itself the German Democratic Republic, did you take their word for it? So why do you take "terrorists" at their word? Be as paranoid as "they" would like you to be, and the game is more than half won. Because then we become what we despise and everything "they" say is further validated. It's a loser's strategy to become totalitarian. Every single prisoner in Gitmo oughtta have a public trial. Period. Only way to restore the pathetic shreds of credibility hanging from the edges of our national robes. Explain to me, in some rational manner, WHO could be in Gitmo that could be SO important, that even acknowledging their existence and trying them would SOMEHOW endanger our nation. You just do NOT have logic on your side. It is FEAR. And sacrificing rationality on the altar of fear, in this day and age, is rarely worth the trade-off. If anyone in Gitmo is such a prize, we'd have heard about it. Gitmo was set up to scare people abroad. If they gained any intelligence, it certainly hasn't produced anything approaching a better result. You know why? Because the methods of terrorism are beyond the reach of armies or torturing a single prisoner. You fight the cause. We only throw gas on the fires of effect.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 07:15:06 PM EST
    Dadler - As I predicted, your defense is: "The government is lying." That isn't a defense As Brother Dave Gardner said: "If the world is wrong, right thine self."

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 08:13:33 PM EST
    Jim, a belated merry Christmas to you. Dadler said: We have no way of knowing anything the government tells us to be true about Gitmo, about the prisoners, any of it. This is different than the quote that you invented for him. He did not say, as you pretend he did: "The government is lying." All of us have been around long enough to know that a President is capable of lying. Your answer to him is therefore out of place and inappropriate: "If the world is wrong, right thine self" Actually his skepticism recalls Ronald Reagan's famous dictum: "Trust, but verify."

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#8)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 08:29:38 PM EST
    So, Jim, your argument is that the government is incapable of lying? Wow. You frontin' the green ganja? Because I'm out,I got a thousand dollars to blow, and you seem to have some seriously good sh*t.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#9)
    by BigTex on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 08:58:25 PM EST
    Maybe I am totally misreading the situation, but who cares if they go on hunger strikes? That's a choice they make. Why are some getting so up in arms about people choosing not to eat? But as it stands the hunger isn't coming from our own end, it is coming from their end. What is troubling is that we are force feeding some who are on the hunger strike. If they want to not eat, hey that's their right. We shouldn't be denying them the ability to refuse to eat.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 10:16:29 PM EST
    BigTex, if you just read Dadler's earlier (7:24 PM) post, you could easily figure out the answers to your own questions. As he noted, Gitmo was set up to scare people abroad. Miserable but living inmates are an essential part of this tactic. But if the inmates die during a hunger strike, they will instead become martyrs and inspire people, rather than instilling fear in them. Since generating that kind of publicity is not why the government put them in there, they must be kept alive. Got it now?

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#11)
    by BigTex on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:29:55 PM EST
    I dunno Cymro. Seems like allowing the hunger strikes would send out the message far more effectivly. Letting someone waste away in misery seems pretty intimidating. Letting pictures of the detainees out with the effects of starvation would be a more effective propaganda tool. The sentiment is based on the belief that given the opportunity they would not carry the "hunger strike" through to fruition (their death.) Then if they do, they do. Us simply not carinig if they do would make the thought of going to Gitmo a more firghtening proposition. If we let the situation play itsself out, then the true fanatics would have a stark choice to make. Are they going to force others to go on a hunger strike, or are they going to gut it out and die a slow horrible, totally preventable death. Something tells me that they would force the others to do the dieing for them, so they could go around making more martyrs. That sounds like a far more frightening and miserable proposition. Is this viewpoint cynical? Yes. But so far the organization of the terorists has been that their leaders lead through fear, not example. You didn't see any high ups on the airplanes on 9-11, or carrying out suicidie bombing. Rather they find others who are truely zelots to do the dirty work. It wouldn't be too hard to have the zelots at Gitmo become enforcers. They keep on eating to have the strength to ensure others participate in the hunger strike. Being forced to participate in a hunger strike seems a far more miserable proposition.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:19:15 AM EST
    BigTex should get some award for "clueless American" comment of the day.
    Letting pictures of the detainees out with the effects of starvation would be a more effective propaganda tool.
    Yes, but for whom?

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#13)
    by BigTex on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 01:14:05 AM EST
    BigTex should get some award for "clueless American" comment of the day... Yes, but for whom?
    All parties involved on two levels. Lvl 1: For us, it would scare off some of the fair weather jihadists. For the terrorists, it would motivate the true believers into action. Lvl 2: For us, it would draw in to the open more of those opposed to us, so we can begin dealing with them. An enemy in the open is far easier to handle than an enemy in disguise. For them, they have a swelling of the ranks.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 02:15:31 AM EST
    I would think that it takes a certain kind or type of human being to work as a guard at Gitmo. The type who would piss in your food, and make life as miserable as possible for any prisoner. The guards do the same to those prisoners in any jail who are doing time for a crime against police or jail guards. I don't blame them for wanting to die and thus the hunger strike. Calm

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 02:19:47 AM EST
    I forgot to add .... Sooner or later a U.S. hostage will be seen via video and in an orange jumpsuit ..... The same treatment being accorded the U.S. hostage .... then we will see the real true grit of America. When the helicopters went down in Afghanistan, the U.S. carpet bombed the complete crash area. They never even cared about survivor soldiers. They were more concerned about one of them being captured and video taped being tortured. Calm

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 03:19:38 AM EST
    Calm: You got a link for that story? The prisoners are making the choice to go on hunger strike. As a tax payer, I would like to thank them for saving some money.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#17)
    by Aaron on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 04:45:10 AM EST
    Okay one more time for the history and logic challenged. (BigTex, Wile E. Coyote) The British learned this lesson the hard way as occupiers in Northern Ireland and India. If you let people die and become martyrs, this energizes their cause and makes their position more sympathetic to everyone who is on the fence. Gandhi understood this, that's how one pacifists intellectual vegan brought the British Empire to their knees. They wound up making concessions simply to get him to start eating again, because they knew that if he died millions were going to take to the streets and fight. Perhaps you haven't noticed but the Muslim world is very close to telling us where to go with our liberation of Iraq. The fact is that the United States is an occupier, and as occupiers we are facing the scenario of watching the goodwill of the people waste away much more quickly than the bodies of these hunger strikers. And in any democracy the will of the people is paramount. Once the people turn against you in a democracy you will be forced to choose between acquiescing to their will or undermining the democracy. As we've seen here in the Americas, the Bush administration and right-wing Republicans have no problem jettisoning any democracy whenever the will of the people doesn't coincide with their political aims. And now we've got a simple choice before us, democracy in Iraq, or to create another totalitarian oligarchy in the Middle East who rig elections and suppress dissent by any means thereby creating a pseudo-democratic nation, much like Egypt. Of course this is a no-brainer for the Bush administration who'll support anyone who they think is an ally regardless of what they do with their people, much the same way the Republicans supported Saddam Hussein when he was our ally. But of course the current administration will be out of power shortly since this is a democracy, and the Republicans are going to lose the house in the coming year as well. But perhaps they'll find a way to subvert democracy here before that happens. In point of fact, Osama bin Laden, and the terrorist Islamic extremists are the Republicans greatest ally, for without them they have no hope of maintaining their support. The strength of the right wing in this country flows from the strength of their enemies.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:12:51 AM EST
    Charlie - The post was about prisoners at GITMO, and I replied about the prisoners at GITMO. If you want to discuss Padilla I'll be happy to discuss the fact that his is a perfect example of what would happen if you tried to treat all of the enemy combatant prisioners as if they were American citizens. Padilla is a citizen, although one with a nasty past. You write:
    Nevertheless, like it or not, he remains an American Citizen with all the rights and privileges that entails.
    My position on US citizens is that they should treated as US citizens, with all the rights thereof. But, with those rights come responsibilities and much higher expectations of loyalty and fidelity than non-citizens. Therefore the penalty for his actions, if proven true, should be death by hanging. BTW - The above is not a new position. I have commented on other threads about US citizens and punishment/rights/responsibilities. punisher - If you take the position that the US government is lying about everything, then the end game for you is that you believe our enemies. If you believe our enemies the end game would be that you can not support the US. And there is no middle ground after you take the first step that the government lies about everything. Because even if you also don't believe our enemies, the result is that you can not support the US. It is a true lose-lose.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:21:15 AM EST
    If you take the position that the US government is lying about everything, then the end game for you is that you believe our enemies.
    The usual illogical construct from PPJ, of course an alternative is to believe no one. PPJ just tries the usual if you don't believe Bush then you are a the friend of the enemy routine.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:10:36 AM EST
    Dadler - First of all, I find your complaint rather humorous, especially after your:
    Well Jim? Lucy is waiting for her 'splaining. I wanna hear this one, too.
    Whose ox, gore, etc., eh? You wrote:
    All secret bullsh*t, Jim. We have no way of knowing anything the government tells us to be true about Gitmo, about the prisoners, any of it. This is not wartime like WWII, our nation is not under attack
    Again to your complaint, I did not, nor do I now, see any reference to "secret prisons" in the comment you reference. The thread is, and was, about GITMO. Surely you don't claim GITMO is secret. And no, this is not WWII. But to claim that our nation is not under attack is laughable. We have had 9/11, the WTC in '93, we have had the attempted bombing of LAX (bombers captured at the Canadian border), the shooting of passengers/employees of El Al at LAX, the attack on the USS Cole, etc, etc. And we have had the declared jihad by OBL and others. And you say we aren't under attack? Dadler, surely you don't believe that. As for "rights and tried," what you posit is that enemy combatants, many captured in combat, be treated as US citizens? First, what right do they have for this honor to be paid to them? Secondly, how in the world could you maintain a chain of evidence that would meet the strict requirements that would be demanded their defense attorneys? I can just see it: Defense Attorney: "Sgt Jones, how do you know that the defendant was captured by US forces in combat? Sgt Jones: "Pvt Lopez told me when he turned him over to me during the fire fight..." Defense Attorney: "So what you have is something that you were told. Did you actually see this? Sgt Jones: "Well, no..." Defense Attorney: "Why isn't Pvt Lopez here....? Sgt Jones: "Pvt Lopez was killed shortly after...." Defense Attorney turns to Judge: "Your honor. There is no proof. All we have is hearsay.. I move for a directed dismissal of all charges.." Judge: "Granted. Prisoner is released... The prosecutor's office chastised for wasting my time.... And don't forget that the prisoner's travel is to be First Class...and don’t forget his Koran and strict dietary requirenents."

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#22)
    by glanton on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:42:23 AM EST
    And you say we aren't under attack? Dadler, surely you don't believe that.
    Look, "et al" it's the Culture of Fear in all its glory! Thanks for the post PPJ. You represent well. I wonder, how long do you think you people are going to be able to milk this? In 2008, for example, will you still be exploiting 9/11 as proof that we are perpetually under attack? How about in 2011? 2025? At what point do the media and government gods from which PPJ takes his Talking Points drop the Orwell act--color coding and all--and magnanimously declare that the United States is no longer under attack? Blech. The weather really, really sucks on Planet Murdoch.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#23)
    by soccerdad on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:53:36 AM EST
    I wonder, how long do you think you people are going to be able to milk this? In 2008, for example, will you still be exploiting 9/11 as proof that we are perpetually under attack?
    No there will be new attacks. Bush et al understand that their interventions in the ME will cause a rise in antiAmerican sentiment, the recruitment of more people to the antiAmerican violence. They have been told this by their own military planners. Heres the main point: They don't care. They will continue their policies in the ME and will eventually be forced to escalate in order to control the governments in the countries with the oil. The increased attacks that will come about as a direct result of their polices will be leveraged by them, given that the Dems are either clueless or silently complicit, to continue their policies. Their policies in the mideast insure a never ending battle against those who are under the mistaken idea that they should control their own countries and are thus labeled terrorists.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#24)
    by glanton on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:04:15 AM EST
    SD, I understand what you're saying, and agree to an extent. My main point here, is that whether or not there are new attacks, at any time in the future, will be more or less irrelevent to the Government and its lackey spin machine. The real seige here is the effort to convince us all that we are perpetually under seige--an effort which will never cease, regardless of what actually happens. The more scared Americans are the better, for those in power. Fortunately, however, there is still more than half the country that is not afraid, that is not constantly looking over its shoulder.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#25)
    by soccerdad on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:08:32 AM EST
    Glanton, I think we are in basic agreement. I'm sorry if I misrepresented what you said.
    whether or not there are new attacks, at any time in the future, will be more or less irrelevent to the Government and its lackey spin machine
    agree 100%

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:20:55 AM EST
    Soccerdad, Glanton, You guys know, and I know. We all know. The War on Terror is in reality the War of Terror. "Keep 'em terrified, they'll keep handing us the power, along with their freedom and their rights." It is the most dirty, cynical, evil use of power imaginable. As long as they can keep more than half the country terrified they win. For anyone else who still thinks the WOT is what BushCo tells you: Think again, think hard... re-read the above conversation... then read it again... BushCo is laughing their asses off at you while you support them...

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    Jim, It's just sad. I see no common ground between us except a heartbeat. We are not under attack, only your overwhelming sense of fear is. Random acts of terror have been with us for centuries, we don't go treating every one of them as an act that will lead to the complete destruction of our nation. We are the only people who can destroy it. Our entire "War on Terror" strategy is designed by idiots, is informed by no knowledge or respect for how to genuinely fight a geurilla war -- which we never should've gotten into in the first place, but at the least YOU'D THINK THESE NITWITS WOULD HAVE THE BRAINS TO STUDY UP AND HAVE A REAL PLAN. Instead, they chose to ignore the gifts of freedom, the gifts of education and knowledge and instead simply reacted. Which is what totalitarians do. They don't listen, they don't consider, they just act and react. Having been denigrated before the war as a traitor, a coward, I don't wanna hear how much debate went on. Bullying went on. Plain and simple. If you think our strategy in Iraq has been well-planned, informed by a history of geurilla wars, is leading to good things...please, give me a link. Tho I have no doubt I'll be suspect of it, I'd certainly like to see what you offer. As for your hypothetical, what are you talking about? You don't know a single thing about a single one of these cases! THAT WAS MY POINT!!! None of us can make any assessment. Our government, because it treats us as children, doesn't think we can bear the truth. We are fearfully trusting big brother to run the gulag. F*ck that. You know what? Real freedom has risks. And publicly trying these prisoners is a small tradeoff compared with the completely LOST credibility of our nation. But what if one of them comes back and bombs us? By that rationale, every single angry Iraqi oughtta be locked up, since we've created more than a few who'd love to wreak havoc here. If you're not willing to live with the risks of freedom, you don't deserve freedom. And terrorism, as genuine risks to public safety, doesn't come close to murder, drunk driving, pollution, or any number of others. That's the plain truth. A truly free country does not keep people in custody without charges indefinitely. Tyranny's do that. Rationalize all you want, that's how tyranny's work, too, they rationalize. I guess it comes down to you trust the government here, that all these prisoners at Gitmo are little evil creatures who would kill a hundred million of us if they could. I'm not as terrified or as paranoid as you. And I'm offended by my government's lack of respect for ME and MY FAMILY, and MY FELLOW CITIZENS. It knows what's best for us. Again. F that. Unchecked government power is a bad thing, in wartime or peacetime, at dinnertime, lunch, whenever. HOW ON EARTH is acting like a civilized nation, acting BETTER than the people you are fighting, going to be detrimental? Our history of saying one thing while doing another (of which Gitmo is but one) is doing us NO GOOD. None. We, as America, MUST BE BETTER. I'm more afraid of what my OWN country IS turning into than I am of what some "terrorist" MIGHT do. Bottom line. You feel the opposite. Peace.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:03:59 PM EST
    Darkly Nedra Pick(l)er: There is no law against that. PPJ: There is! God's law! DNP: Then God can arrest him. PPJ: Sophistication upon sophistication. DNP: No, sheer simplicity. The law, PPJ, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. PPJ: Then you set man's law above God's! DNP: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact - I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. ............... Alice: While you talk, he's gone! DNP: And go he should, if he was in Al Qaeda itself, until he broke the law! PPJ: So now you'd give OBL and all of them the benefit of law! More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after OBL? PPJ: I'd cut down every law in America to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and OBL turned round on you - where would you hide, PPJ, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give OBL the benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
    With apologies to Robert Bolt.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:52:18 PM EST
    Dadler... This is not wartime like WWII, our nation is not under attack, we are not going to be occupied and defeated by a foreign army See...this is the main disconnect here.... All the libs think the 9/11 attacks were a one time deal... most of the rest of us see it as the first of many attempts to kill as many Americans as possible. Fact is...we are at war ..and it's WWIII so we need to get serious about America and it's people and less about those that want us all dead. Every single prisoner in Gitmo oughtta have a public trial. Period. Why give people that hate us access to our courts? Should all the POWs in WWII been given that same courtesy? If they gained any intelligence, it certainly hasn't produced anything approaching a better result. And you know this for a fact? Why because it hasn't been in the NY times yet? If you're not willing to live with the risks of freedom, you don't deserve freedom. Why take a needless risk? We are all at risk everyday, but I want my government to protect me from 'our' enemies. That's what we pay them for and that's what they are trying to do albeit with one hand tied being their back thanks to the libs (ACLU) in this country. Happy New Year

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 01:13:01 PM EST
    Hodo - You must be programed to disagree. I didn't say:
    So, your position is that because Padilla's an American citizen the Government now has less of a burden to meet to make its case because it's your opinion and you've stated it before, eh? Nice try. No sale.
    What I said was:
    My position on US citizens is that they should treated as US citizens, with all the rights thereof.But, with those rights come responsibilities and much higher expectations of loyalty and fidelity than non-citizens. Therefore the penalty for his actions, if proven true, should be death by hanging.
    Now show me that I have reduced anything. Do you some time to clean the egg off your face? BTW - Comparsions to the IRA, etc., are very inaccurate. First, the IRA didn't declare jihad. Secondly, we aren't occupying the ME. We'll be out of there in 18 months. Glanton - If we have't been attacked by 2008 you will be making the same claim. If we have you will be blaming Bush. So, when you gonna have a new claim? Edger - We know you don't know that car bombers are terrorists.
    Posted by edger at December 4, 2005 08:12 AM Insurgents don't use car bombs to kill civilians or give booby trapped dolls to children. That is terrorist work, edgey. (quoted from my previous comment) That is not "terrorist work" in the way you try to twist it to mean, at all. It is the work of the Iraqi people - the very people BushCo thought would throw flowers - fighting to kick the US out of Iraq" (edger's reply)
    SD writes:
    No there will be new attacks.
    Based on the March 1997, almost 9 years ago words of OBL to then CNN reporter Peter Arnett I would say you are right.
    REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ? BIN LADIN: The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the US aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world
    Dadler - Good grief. These are not random acts of terror. They are being carried out by a loosley organized multi-national well financed group of terrorists that conceal themselves in the general population. And to say we should try and prevent them is not a fearful act. It is just commonsense to take precautions. And my point in the "skit" was, as you know very well, was to demonstrate the all most impossibility of maintaining all the due process that we have in our system. REPEAT AFTER ME: THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SITUATION. THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T ROB A 7-11. THEY AREN'T AMERICAN CITIZENS. Darkly - Not one of your better ones. pick pick pick

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#31)
    by glanton on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 02:35:04 PM EST
    If we have't been attacked by 2008 you will be making the same claim. If we have you will be blaming Bush. So, when you gonna have a new claim?
    Lots wrong with this. Where to begin? First of all, I love the age-old Talking Point about "Bush Haters." You people really found something that gets you off there, didn't you? But: Have you ever stopped to think that my opposition to Bush is due to his policies, to how he governs? Of course you didn't. Detained in your little Murdoch Land, you probably really think that people were against Bush before they even knew who or what he was. It's okay. Like voting GOP, taking that line is easier than thinking. Second, I didn't really make a claim upthread, so much as ask a question. Question is: How long do you think your government and its media lackeys are going to perpetuate the idea that we're like Troy, under siege? Oh, wait. I did make a "claim," I guess, when I said that a populace scared stupid is easiest to govern. Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 02:48:38 PM EST
    Got a link to refute me, PPJ? No? Didn't think so. TTFN, Whizzy aka the Card Remora.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 03:10:27 PM EST
    PPJ:
    These are not random acts of terror. They are being carried out by a loosley organized multi-national well financed group of terrorists that conceal themselves in the general population.
    True, they do hide among the population, as you say. But the mistake you make is to believe that the people who are making a big show of trying to fight the so-called "war on terror" do not already know quite well who these concealed terrorists are. In factg, they know very well that the vast majority of organized terrorists are to be found among the ranks of the intelligence agencies and their sponsored puppets. The true reason for the terror, and the subsequent show of "being at war on terror", is really just to scare the US public into submission, to take away their rights and freedoms, and to divert tax dollars into untraceable schemes that do not benefit those who pay the taxes). If you cannot see that this is the case, and persist in believing the stories we are being fed by the true instigators of organized terror, then (as far as I am concerned) trying to discuss this subject with you is a total waste of time. We are just starting from different assumptions.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 03:50:10 PM EST
    Darkly - Refute what? pick pck pick cymro - Yes, we are. You hate Bush and think everything we do is wrong. I hate no one and think a great deal of what we do is right. But you have, although inadvertently, have hit upon why Iraq is important. The purpose of Iraq was/is three fold. First, everyone did think he had WMD's. He had had'em, and he was definitely wanting back in the game. Secondly, by establishing a democracy in Iraq, it is hoped/believed that other countries within the ME will see that it can be done, and the population of these countries will force change on the leaders of those countries. In turn, the leaders will get rid of the various terrorist organizations within the country as a means of reform for survival. It is working to a snall degree in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Libya. To a smaller degree in SA. Now, will success follow? I believe it will, but would agree with anyone that it will be touch and go. That is why the lack of support for the war in Iraq by the Demo leadership is so damnable. They know what the stakes are, yet are willing to sacrifice success for political gain. Shame on them. Glanton - They don't have to make it up. All they have to do is show the record. And "Murdock Land?" Really? Come on. You can do better.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#35)
    by glanton on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 03:59:17 PM EST
    They don't have to make it up. All they have to do is show the record.
    Look. Nothing that you, or the Talking Heads from whom you take your marching orders, can say will scare into submission any American with a respect for freedom. The lemmings can be fooled into buying duct tape and turning in their car keys to "Papa" Dick Cheney. The rest of us have withstood the propaganda, and will continue to withstand. There is no excuse for abrogating a shred of civil liberty in this nation. None. Zip. Zilch.
    And "Murdock Land?" Really? Come on. You can do better.
    Actually, it is America that can do better. The greatest crime that has been perpetrated on this country emanates not from Washington, where we are used to Machievellian tactics: it comes from the tabloidization, the utter garbageization of our "Fourth Estate." The American Media is dripping in blood, but selling like hot cakes. Don't worry. Another Missing White Female, or "War on February," is guaranteed to hit the presses soon.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 07:06:00 PM EST
    Charlie - You can't be that dumb. Or maybe you can. Or maybe you are just being deliberately obtuse because of your obvious error. You write:
    Well, there's that right to counsel thing for openers.
    What I said was, and have said before; you are welcome to check the archives:
    My position on US citizens is that they should treated as US citizens, with all the rights thereof.
    Now, what don't you understand about "ALL?"
    All - the whole number, quantity, or amount : TOTALITY
    Tell me. Did you get so excited over me agreeing with you that you had a mild stroke and suffered cognitive thinking ability loss? Or was the stroke caused by me noting that with rights come responsibilities and (gasp!!!) loyalty to the country. Or was it the suggestion that if convicted CITIZENS should be hanged by the next until dead? Either way, take lots of aspirins, call 911 and good luck. We can't afford to lose you. No sir, we really can’t, Hodo. ;-)

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:03:18 PM EST
    Medical personnel were force-feeding 32 of the hunger strikers with plastic tubes inserted into the stomach through the nose, the military said. Asked the purpose of the force-feeding, Martin said: "Because our policy is to preserve life." Maybe I missed something in the comments above, but why is no one screaming about the fact that medical personnel are FORCE-FEEDING these individuals? I distinctly remember a number of individuals screaming about an individual's right to determine whether they live or die. Why the hell do we think it is ok for someone to force-feed another individual. I don't care if they are US citizens, "enemy combatants (whatever that means now a days) or citizens of another country. No one has the right to force-feed another individual.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:12:34 PM EST
    Darkly - Refute what? pick pck pick There you go again, Poor Pepperpicker Jim, making up your own words again. TTFN, Whizzy

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:39:54 PM EST
    az2tx:
    Maybe I missed something in the comments above, but why is no one screaming about the fact that medical personnel are FORCE-FEEDING these individuals?
    I think you can take it as given that most people posting here are outraged at the existence of GITMO and other similar US prisons, outraged at the secrecy which surrounds these US internment facilities, outraged at the fact that the US government not only refuses to condemn torture but is actually promoting torture in its secret prisons, and outraged at the manipulation of its prisoners for political ends -- manipulation that no doubt includes force-feeding hunger strikers to ensure they don't die and become martyrs. But they spend so much time responding to disruptive and distracting posts from GITMO supporters like JimakaPPJ, BigTex, and BB, that there is not enough time left to express outrage. But if you read the posts carefully, I think you will see that it is there.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#40)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 04:56:00 AM EST
    I see that our minister of propaganda here at TL is in fine form catapulting the propaganda. Same old nonsense, same old techniques, same old cut and paste from 200 previous comments. I'm sure that he has said this nonsense so many times he actually believes it himself.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    SD, when you look into the psychology of the "True Believer", what you may find is very messy and frightening:
    The book probes into the psychology of the frustrated and dissatisfied, those who would eagerly sacrifice themselves for any cause that might give their meaningless lives some sense of significance. The alienated seek to lose themselves in these movements by adopting those fanatical attitudes that are, according to Hoffer, fundamentally "a flight from the self."
    Link

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 11:13:06 AM EST
    DA, You gotta stop with the "psycho babble", you know? You'll confuse them so much they'll never find themselves. I mean, look, you had them so far gone they were on the way back. ;-)

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    Happy New Years, all! I've only been involved in one aspect of this thread. To recap:
    PPJ (December 29, 2005 04:15 PM): ...over 500 have received tribunals and found to be an enemy combatants... some released have returned to their previous occupation and been killed in combat or recaptured. Dadler (December 29, 2005 07:24 PM): We have no way of knowing anything the government tells us to be true about Gitmo, about the prisoners, any of it. PPJ (December 29, 2005 08:15 PM): Dadler - As I predicted, your defense is: "The government is lying." Punisher (December 29, 2005 09:13 PM: Dadler said: We have no way of knowing anything the government tells us to be true about Gitmo, about the prisoners, any of it. This is different than the quote that you invented for him. He did not say, as you pretend he did: "The government is lying." All of us have been around long enough to know that a President is capable of lying... "Trust, but verify." PPJ (December 30, 2005 09:12 AM): punisher - If you take the position that the US government is lying about everything, then the end game for you is that you believe our enemies...
    Again, as President Reagan said, trust, but verify. We agree that Presidents in the past have lied. We agree that Presidents in the future will lie. I can trust that the President does not lie, and yet knowing that he might lie, consider it to be my patriotic duty to guard my freedom, and the freedom of my family and friends and neighbors and church congregants and co-workers. Even if the President were the most honest President ever, we'd be fools to assume that he would never abuse his power. If we were to give up our patriotic duties to guard our liberties, then we'd deserve to lose them.

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    I'll preempt the by now automatic next exchange: Punisher: If we were to give up our patriotic duties to guard our liberties, then we'd deserve to lose them. Islamofascist Terrorist (and American Bush/Cheney supporting cowards who unwittingly are doing their bidding): Your freedom will do you no good WHEN YOU ARE DEAD!

    Re: 84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike (none / 0) (#45)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:22:44 PM EST
    DA Good link

    84 Now on Guantanamo Hunger Strike | 44 comments (44 topical)