NationStates Jolt Archive

Finally!

After years of complaining about mistreatment of prisoners at GitMo, the UN's primary court has now agreed that it is okay to force feed a hunger striking prisoner: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6214862.stm

Ah. Irony.

forcing someone to eat has never been the issue.

putting water into their lungs and jumper cables on their nuts has been.

forcing someone to eat has never been the issue.

putting water into their lungs and jumper cables on their nuts has been.

I still consider that less evil than forcing the people you protect to have sex with you for food.

I still consider that less evil than forcing the people you protect to have sex with you for food.

Has the UN been doing that?

Finally!

After years of complaining about mistreatment of prisoners at GitMo, the UN's primary court has now agreed that it is okay to force feed a hunger striking prisoner: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6214862.stm

Ah. Irony.

force feeding, which in this context is not even really "feeding" is not even remotely close to torture.

Not even close.

:rolleyes: I still consider that less evil than forcing the people you protect to have sex with you for food.

"Look, they are evil so we can be too!"
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

"Look, they are evil so we can be too!"
:rolleyes:

Nope. Just enjoying in the glorious hypocrisy. :p

Has the UN been doing that?

It's Blue Helmets certainly have been... but I'm sure they're just "minor excesses", like the US Soliders that went a little too far in Abu Ghraib.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060509-090826-9806r.htm

Ah. Irony.No, not really. Nice try though.

force feeding, which in this context is not even really "feeding" is not even remotely close to torture.

Not even close.

A big "whatever". They approve of the very tactic they complain about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1709256,00.html

The same double standard garbage as the EU complaining about the CIA flights that they knew full well about and most were complicit with.

I still consider that less evil than forcing the people you protect to have sex with you for food.

Ah.

the old "they're evil to someone else, therefore, it's OK for us to be evil to them" excuse.

completely get it.

Ah.

the old "they're evil to someone else, therefore, it's OK for us to be evil to them" excuse.

completely get it.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12047941&postcount=7

Several sources show that the upper parts of the Bush Administration condoned, approved and ordered torture. Cheney, Gonzales and Rumsfeld made media declarations condoning it, and there are several memos in which Rummy ordered it.

Show me ONE report that says the upper parts of the UN condoned the sex-for-food program the blue helmets were holding. Credible please.

Several sources show that the upper parts of the Bush Administration condoned, approved and ordered torture. Cheney, Gonzales and Rumsfeld made media declarations condoning it, and there are several memos in which Rummy ordered it.

Show me ONE report that says the upper parts of the UN condoned the sex-for-food program the blue helmets were holding.

Dude! I can't even show you the ones from the Oil for Food scandal because the UN has supressed them...

However, 12 YEARS of something going on is basically condoning it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30286-2005Mar12.html

A big "whatever". They approve of the very tactic they complain about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1709256,00.html

The same double standard garbage as the EU complaining about the CIA flights that they knew full well about and most were complicit with.

Which the US government and the pro war crowd denied
vehemently until the US government said
well yeah we did do that but we didnt keep them hidden and out
of the way to do anything immoral or illegal

honest

You can take our word for it

really

truly

Would we lie to you?

Finally!

After years of complaining about mistreatment of prisoners at GitMo, the UN's primary court has now agreed that it is okay to force feed a hunger striking prisoner: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6214862.stm

Ah. Irony.

Not "the UN's primary court" at all, but the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. http://www.un.org/icty/

And there might be a difference between "drip-feeding" and the "Violent force-feeding of hunger strikers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1709256,00.html)"
Guards at Guantánamo began force-feeding the protesters last August, strapping them on stretchers and inserting large tubes into their nasal passages, according to a lawyer for Kuwaiti detainees who has had contact with the UN envoys.

The effort to break the hunger strike has accelerated since the UN envoys produced their draft, with inmates strapped in restraint chairs for hours and fed laxatives so that they defecate on themselves.

"The government is not doing things to keep them alive. It is really conducting tactics to deprive them of the ability to be on hunger strike because the hunger strike is an embarrassment to them," said Thomas Wilner, an attorney at the Washington firm Shearman & Sterlin, who represents several Kuwaiti detainees.

Do you really fail to see the difference? Might it be in the methods used?

Finally!

After years of complaining about mistreatment of prisoners at GitMo, the UN's primary court has now agreed that it is okay to force feed a hunger striking prisoner: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6214862.stm

Ah. Irony.


"The trial chamber ordered the authorities of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to provide medical services - which may in the case of medical necessity include intervention such as drip-feeding - with the aim of protecting the health and welfare of the accused and avoiding loss of life," it said in a statement.


Can someone please explain to me how a medical treatment necessary to prevent starvation qualifies as, or is even comparable to, torture? I'm just not seeing the connection.

The thing is, if that guy dies, then he is made a Martyr against the UN.

Suddenly, people will get angry that the UN just let someone die rather than give them what they want.
But it's a catch 22.
If they do give him what he wants, others will replicate his tactics to get what they want.

Has the UN been doing that?

Yes. UN soldiers are currently under investigation for doing that.

Can someone please explain to me how a medical treatment necessary to prevent starvation qualifies as, or is even comparable to, torture? I'm just not seeing the connection.
There's a connection when you feel the need to justify/defend/excuse your own country's abhorrent behaviour.

Otherwise, you're correct: There isn't one.

it's no news that big politics turn a blind eye to torture. and this is a measure to save lives not fuck it up.

edit: if it were humane, I really need to learn to read post before replying, but my first point stands, most big politic organs and such, are turning a blind eye to torture and genocide on a daily basis, and so are we.

Finally!

After years of complaining about mistreatment of prisoners at GitMo, the UN's primary court has now agreed that it is okay to force feed a hunger striking prisoner: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6214862.stm

Ah. Irony.

About time the UN recognizes this.

About time the UN recognizes this.

They don't. Not the way it's done at Guantanamo at least.

Yes. UN soldiers are currently under investigation for doing that.

Indeed. They're under investigation for it. So it's not something the UN approves of, condones or encourages.

Indeed. They're under investigation for it. So it's not something the UN approves of, condones or encourages.

Took them long enough. And the allegations were sat on for quite a while.

Took them long enough. And the allegations were sat on for quite a while.

Regardless, the UN can investigate but it is the responsibility of the member state from where the offending troops hail that are ultimately responsible for punishing the transgressors. The UN organisation has little more than administrative measures at their disposal - like demotion or sending the offending soldier home.
The United Nations also opened an investigation earlier this month into allegations of sexual abuse of minors by U.N. troops in the Central African country of Burundi. "Over the past few weeks I have learned to my deep regret that, despite firm instructions to the contrary, some staff members continue to indulge in unacceptable and potentially illegal behavior," Carolyn McKaskie, the senior U.N. representative, wrote in a March 10 internal memo to members of the U.N. mission.

Lute said the U.N. peacekeeping department has ordered an internal review of its policies for combating sexual exploitation among the nearly 80,000 peacekeepers in all 17 U.N. peacekeeping missions around the world.
They are also pressing countries that contribute peacekeepers to prosecute those accused of crimes in special courts-martial in the countries where they are accused.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30286-2005Mar12.html

Regardless, the UN can investigate but it is the responsibility of the member state from where the offending troops hail that are ultimately responsible for punishing the transgressors. The UN organisation has little more than administrative measures at their disposal - like demotion or sending the offending soldier home.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30286-2005Mar12.html

Actually, it's quite common with UN troops. It's happened in the Congo and in Bosnia and in other UN assignments.

It's becoming a habit.

Actually, it's quite common with UN troops. It's happened in the Congo and in Bosnia and in other UN assignments.

It's becoming a habit.

I think it is habitual in all armies that are populated exclusively by males. I think it is more of a case that these allegations and charges are finally being voiced and addressed.

Soldiers from all nations have been raping women from all nations since we learnt to swing a stick. Society is now beginning to see that this is a bad thing.

This has nothing to do with the drip-feeding of Vojislav Seselj, mind you.

Or the violent force feeding methods used by US forces.

What an odd thread this is becoming.

Actually, it's quite common with UN troops. It's happened in the Congo and in Bosnia and in other UN assignments.

It's becoming a habit.
Yes, it's common and it's old news. The UN is trying to do something about it, and the member states should prosecute more agressively and maybe relinquish claims to immunity. However, we're getting off topic.

This has nothing to do with the drip-feeding of Vojislav Seselj, mind you.

Or the violent force feeding methods used by US forces.

What an odd thread this is becoming.
Indeed.

Dude! I can't even show you the ones from the Oil for Food scandal because the UN has supressed them...

However, 12 YEARS of something going on is basically condoning it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30286-2005Mar12.html

Very well, let's assume the scandals weren't exaggerated by the US. Does that make the Orwellian torture of innocents in Gitmo okay or do you want someone that has not done anything similar to point that it's bad out so you consider it valid? In that case, allow me to: The treatment of prisoners in Gitmo is an absurd and revolting act of torture. I can prove that I never tortured anyone nor hurt a fly. Will your nice soldiers cut it off now?

Finally!

After years of complaining about mistreatment of prisoners at GitMo, the UN's primary court has now agreed that it is okay to force feed a hunger striking prisoner: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6214862.stm

Ah. Irony.

No, the irony would have been if the Hague was holding randomly snatched citizens without due process and legal standing, while criticising the United States for doing do.

Sadly for you, they're not, so your point fails.

Very well, let's assume the scandals weren't exaggerated by the US. Does that make the Orwellian torture of innocents in Gitmo okay or do you want someone that has not done anything similar to point that it's bad out so you consider it valid? In that case, allow me to: The treatment of prisoners in Gitmo is an absurd and revolting act of torture. I can prove that I never tortured anyone nor hurt a fly. Will your nice soldiers cut it off now?

Of course not. I'm just pointing out that the UN has about the same "moral high ground" as the US does: NONE.

And there might be a difference between "drip-feeding" and the "Violent force-feeding of hunger strikers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,1709256,00.html)"

Do you really fail to see the difference? Might it be in the methods used?

So: The US forces someone to do something against their will, and the US is evil. The UN does the same thing and its okay?

Riiiiiight. You just scored another one for individual liberties there! :rolleyes:

Do you really fail to see there is no difference? Neither is right.

Can someone please explain to me how a medical treatment necessary to prevent starvation qualifies as, or is even comparable to, torture? I'm just not seeing the connection.

I'm point out that the UN is violating civil liberties just like the US did with the force feedings. Neither party wants to be fed, neither has been convicted of anything, in both cases their jailers are forcing them to eat.

No, the irony would have been if the Hague was holding randomly snatched citizens without due process and legal standing, while criticising the United States for doing do.

Sadly for you, they're not, so your point fails.

True. They much prefer to drag out cases for half a decade instead of making them face swift justice. Thank goodness they allowed him to call 1200 witnesses! Yeah, I'm sure Slobodan Milošević was very inconvenienced about being in court for 5 years instead of in front of a gallows where he belonged.

(Yes, I know he wasn't facing the death sentance... doesn't mean he didn't deserve to die though.)

So: The US forces someone to do something against their will, and the US is evil. The UN does the same thing and its okay?
They're doing the same thing - force feeding - but using wastly different methods - UN: Drip feeding. US: Insertion of gastric tubes (through the nasal passage).

One is painless, the other is quite painful and violent - and it's the violence some describe as serious mistreatment that the UN has criticized, not that they where keeping people alive against their will.


Riiiiiight. You just scored another one for individual liberties there! :rolleyes: Yes. Non-violence is preferable to violence. Painless is OK, painful is not.


Do you really fail to see there is no difference? Neither is right.
Whether or not force feeding in itself is right or wrong is debatable. However, it's beside the point, as it's the methods used that makes up the difference here. And given that force feeding is acceptable, then the UN method would be the right way to go about it.
I kinda doubt you'll see Seselj being forced to defacate on himself...