NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/11/04/gitmo.starvation/index.html
Hmm. That evil Gitmo, and that US treatment of prisoners.

A quarter of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are on hunger strikes

Friday, November 4, 2005; Posted: 10:43 p.m. EST (03:43 GMT)

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the prisoners are starving themselves to get media attention. Maybe yes, maybe no

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba (CNN) -- Twenty-three detainees on hunger strikes at the prison camp here are being force fed to prevent their deaths, a doctor who works with the prisoners told CNN.

"They are malnourished because they have hunger struck for a significant amount of time," said the doctor, who asked that his name not be used because he fears reprisals from the prisoners.Why fear the prisoners? Either they will be in Gitmo forever, or they will be released. If released, why fear them - you are their doctor and they've confided in you?

Since August 8, the number of detainees refusing to eat has risen from several dozen to about 128, about a quarter of the prison population, according to the Pentagon.And here I thought hundreds were there

Though Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said earlier this week that the prisoners were on hunger strikes to get media attention, the doctor said they were protesting their detention. The doctor denied that the prisoners were protesting their treatment at the prison facility.So, they protest their detention (well, indefinite detention is a valid grievance). But they aren't protesting their treatment? I thought we were torturing them around the clock.

Read through another news story you find, and insert your comments. You might even consider picking a news site you hate, and illustrate what you think is going on in the article (I expect at least ONE from Fox News because you all complain about it).

...said the doctor, who asked that his name not be used because he fears reprisals from the prisoners.Why fear the prisoners? Either they will be in Gitmo forever, or they will be released. If released, why fear them - you are their doctor and they've confided in you?
Yeah, I went to the link (I always read a link before reading posts about a link) and I was stuck there on that sentence for at least a minute (which doesnt sound long until you consider how long it takes to read such a simple sentence). I honestly thought I was misreading so I kept re-reading it...I really cant for the life of me work out if it's some kind of typo or quite what it is supposed to mean if it's not a typo....:confused:

Since August 8, the number of detainees refusing to eat has risen from several dozen to about 128, about a quarter of the prison population, according to the Pentagon.And here I thought undreds were there
Well if 128 is about a quarter, then there is about 500, which qualifies as hundreds.

Why fear the prisoners?

I think that in order for a doctor to treat a prisoner, the doctor actually has to come within arm's reach of the prisoner. If the prisoner wants to assault the doctor, he's gonna assault the doctor...

I think that in order for a doctor to treat a prisoner, the doctor actually has to come within arm's reach of the prisoner. If the prisoner wants to assault the doctor, he's gonna assault the doctor...
Well there are the armed guards who are also within arm reach, and presuming these 'so weak from hunger we had to force fed them to prevent them dying of starvation' prisoners are in any state to physically attack someone, I dont see why the doctor at a place as secure as this would be more frightened of his patients than the average medical worker at a high security criminal prison.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/11/04/gitmo.starvation/index.html

Since August 8, the number of detainees refusing to eat has risen from several dozen to about 128, about a quarter of the prison population, according to the Pentagon.

And here I thought hundreds were there
Perhaps you were right? 4 X 128 = 512 :eek:

Perhaps you were right? 4 X 128 = 512 :eek:
Thank you, I was just about to point this fact out. I may not be able to add or subtract but I can damn sure multiply and if 128 is a quarter of something that means there are 4 times as many things there, and 4 times 128 is quantifiably "hundreds."

In a nutshell, the prisoners attitudes and the article simply are stating: "Screw you Mr. Bush and screw all you infidels".

In a nutshell, the prisoners attitudes and the article simply are stating: "Screw you Mr. Bush and screw all you infidels".

Can't blame them really.

A quarter of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are on hunger strike.
I've never been able to fully understand this. You're incarcerated and you don't like it, so you go on hunger strike and starve to death. That somehow makes you better off? Hmmm. :eek:

In a nutshell, the prisoners attitudes and the article simply are stating: "Screw you Mr. Bush and screw all you infidels".
So let 'em starve themselves to death. ( shrug )

Can't blame them really.
I can ... and do. It's just more lunacy.

I've never been able to fully understand this. You're incarcerated and you don't like it, so you go on hunger strike and starve to death. That somehow makes you better off? Hmmm. :eek:

I guess the purpose of a hunger strike is to draw attention to your situation and not to starve yourself. After all, without the strike, there would be no article about it.

Thank you, I was just about to point this fact out. I may not be able to add or subtract but I can damn sure multiply and if 128 is a quarter of something that means there are 4 times as many things there, and 4 times 128 is quantifiably "hundreds."

Let's look at your math:

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba (CNN) -- Twenty-three detainees on hunger strikes at the prison camp here are being force fed to prevent their deaths, a doctor who works with the prisoners told CNN.

Hmmm.... 23 x 4 = 92

92 detainees...

Let's look at your math:

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba (CNN) -- Twenty-three detainees on hunger strikes at the prison camp here are being force fed to prevent their deaths, a doctor who works with the prisoners told CNN.

Hmmm.... 23 x 4 = 92

92 detainees...

Let's take an even closer look at the article:

Since August 8, the number of detainees refusing to eat has risen from several dozen to about 128, about a quarter of the prison population, according to the Pentagon.

Let's take an even closer look at the article:

Even so, it's still not nearly as many as I was led to believe.

I had the impression it was well over 1000 prisoners total, and they were building more housing for even more.

Must not be taking too many prisoners in the War on Terror, or we're no longer bringing them to Gitmo.

Or both.

Let's look at your math:

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba (CNN) -- Twenty-three detainees on hunger strikes at the prison camp here are being force fed to prevent their deaths, a doctor who works with the prisoners told CNN.

Hmmm.... 23 x 4 = 92

92 detainees...
Um, here ya go.

the number of detainees refusing to eat has risen from several dozen to about 128
There are more prisoners on a hunger strike than there are prisoners total?

I had the impression it was well over 1000 prisoners total
What is with everyone and magic math? First, you said you "thought it was hundreds." Then, we show you it is hundreds, and you change your story to well over a thousand. I can only assume you will say that hundreds means over 1000.

None of you have bothered to do what I proposed in the initial post, and get a news story and show me what you pick through... :rolleyes:

I've never been able to fully understand this. You're incarcerated and you don't like it, so you go on hunger strike and starve to death. That somehow makes you better off? Hmmm. :eek:

What else can you do to protest your treatment?

What else can you do to protest your treatment?

They aren't protesting their treatment. They are protesting their detention.

Evidently, there's nothing about they way they are being treated that merits their protesting. But being detained indefinitely is a big deal to them.

I suppose that's the worst thing that could happen if you expected to die gloriously in combat and go to heaven. Now you're sitting on a Carribean island, eating three meals a day, bored out of your socks, and with no chance at all of dying for the cause - unless you off yourself.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/11/04/gitmo.starvation/index.html
Hmm. That evil Gitmo, and that US treatment of prisoners.

A quarter of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are on hunger strikes

Friday, November 4, 2005; Posted: 10:43 p.m. EST (03:43 GMT)

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the prisoners are starving themselves to get media attention. Maybe yes, maybe no

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba (CNN) -- Twenty-three detainees on hunger strikes at the prison camp here are being force fed to prevent their deaths, a doctor who works with the prisoners told CNN.

"They are malnourished because they have hunger struck for a significant amount of time," said the doctor, who asked that his name not be used because he fears reprisals from the prisoners.Why fear the prisoners? Either they will be in Gitmo forever, or they will be released. If released, why fear them - you are their doctor and they've confided in you?

Maybe the doctor is paranoid or something. I don't get it either.

Since August 8, the number of detainees refusing to eat has risen from several dozen to about 128, about a quarter of the prison population, according to the Pentagon.And here I thought hundreds were there

Though Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said earlier this week that the prisoners were on hunger strikes to get media attention, the doctor said they were protesting their detention. The doctor denied that the prisoners were protesting their treatment at the prison facility.So, they protest their detention (well, indefinite detention is a valid grievance). But they aren't protesting their treatment? I thought we were torturing them around the clock.

I'd say that the treatment is part of the detention, isn't it? Or maybe the ones who are on hunger strike aren't the ones who are being tortured. Maybe they set up shifts or something. Besides, we cannot trust that paranoid doctor.

Maybe the doctor is paranoid or something. I don't get it either.

I'd say that the treatment is part of the detention, isn't it? Or maybe the ones who are on hunger strike aren't the ones who are being tortured. Maybe they set up shifts or something. Besides, we cannot trust that paranoid doctor.

Can you think of a reason not to trust him? If you don't trust him, you don't have a lot of other first-hand sources (unless you trust Rumsfeld).

They aren't protesting their treatment. They are protesting their detention.

Evidently, there's nothing about they way they are being treated that merits their protesting. But being detained indefinitely is a big deal to them.

I suppose that's the worst thing that could happen if you expected to die gloriously in combat and go to heaven. Now you're sitting on a Carribean island, eating three meals a day, bored out of your socks, and with no chance at all of dying for the cause - unless you off yourself.

And that they are kept away from their families, kept incommunicado from the rest of the world, isolated, denied the right of due process, etc etc. Their treatment and their detention are linked together.

And that they are kept away from their families, kept incommunicado from the rest of the world, isolated, denied the right of due process, etc etc. Their treatment and their detention are linked together.

And they can't continue to attack Americans, etc...

Can you think of a reason not to trust him? If you don't trust him, you don't have a lot of other first-hand sources (unless you trust Rumsfeld).

Well acording to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4206908.stm) article it's all about the treatment:

Guantanamo hunger strike staged
Scores of detainees at the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have begun a hunger strike, human rights lawyers have said.

The prisoners, many of whom have been held for more than three years without charge, are believed to be demanding an immediate trial or release.

Lawyers for the detainees say about 200 are refusing all food. Military officials put the number at 76.

A hunger strike in July ended when the Pentagon agreed to talk to inmates.

The prisoners have now restarted that action, accusing officials of reneging on their promise to negotiate, amid allegations of mistreatment.

Humane treatment

The lawyers say one prisoner has written a will in anticipation of starving to death.

Gitanjali Gutierrez, of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, representing some of Guantanamo's 500 or so prisoners, said the Pentagon had denied them proper legal access.

The policy had "driven detainees to strike until they die or are afforded a fair hearing and humane treatment", he told the AFP news agency.

The Pentagon has said only 76 detainees are refusing food, not the 200 claimed by the lawyers, but has not said when the protest began.

During the previous hunger strike, the prisoners were monitored by medical professionals and admitted to hospital where necessary.

Since the article says that one of the detainees has written a will, it seems that the lawyer had some sort of contact with the prisoners, which could classify as first-hand source.

But we probably don't get to hear the whole truth in both articles.

Well acording to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4206908.stm) article it's all about the treatment:



Since the article says that one of the detainees has written a will, it seems that the lawyer had some sort of contact with the prisoners, which could classify as first-hand source.

But we probably don't get to hear the whole truth in both articles.


Very good! Now, pick another article, on another topic, and you mark it up, and point out what is questionable or unique, and we'll continue.

None of you have bothered to do what I proposed in the initial post, and get a news story and show me what you pick through... :rolleyes:
We rather pick through your posts.

We rather pick through your posts.

So you wouldn't like anyone else to pick through yours, eh?

So you wouldn't like anyone else to pick through yours, eh?
Go ahead, I try not to say three things somehow all contrary to each other.