If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   The US Army, as a known leading religious authority, rules that having a tube shoved up your nose does not violate Ramadan   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 110
    More: Followup, Ramadan, hunger strikes, theocracies, force-fed, forced feeding, religious laws, fundamental rights  
•       •       •

1121 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jul 2013 at 12:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-05 12:34:11 PM  
"Consider the irony of the Obama administration arguing here that the Guantánamo Bay detainees are not 'persons' within the scope of US law guaranteeing religious freedom, in a post-Citizens United world where even corporations are endowed with legal personhood."

Oh snap.
 
2013-07-05 12:35:13 PM  
Paying a soldier to force feed an innocent(that is to say: not proven guilty) person food who doesn't want it: perfectly ok.
Food stamps: a waste of money, cut cut cut!
 
2013-07-05 12:37:14 PM  
And I, as a free citizen and taxpayer, am forced to CHEW my food?!! Why are we pampering them?
 
2013-07-05 12:37:15 PM  
Government lawyers said that enteral or force feeding is authorised by federal regulations when a prisoner's life or permanent health is in danger, and is related to "preserving order security and discipline within the detention facility", according to court documents in the case.

Sehr gutt!
 
2013-07-05 12:38:50 PM  
Do I care about "violating Ramadan"? Not really.

Do I care that we are holding people indefinitely? Hell the fark yeah.

ikanreed: Paying a soldier to force feed an innocent(that is to say: not proven guilty) person food who doesn't want it: perfectly ok.
Food stamps: a waste of money, cut cut cut!


Nah. The same people who scream about abortion being murder don't give a shiat if those we are force feeding die OR if poor people starve.
 
2013-07-05 12:41:40 PM  
It's not a "human rights violation" if you don't think the prisoners are human?

That about right?
 
2013-07-05 12:43:44 PM  
I'm sure that subby is aware that Islam only requires fasting during daylight hours during Ramadan, and that TFA states that the force feeding was being done in such a way to accommodate those beliefs.

/still not down with force feeding
 
2013-07-05 12:44:46 PM  
Can't they just Incorporate themselves so they can be seen as persons according to US law?
 
2013-07-05 12:47:21 PM  
My give-a-fark-o-meter is failing to register.
 
2013-07-05 12:48:19 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: "Consider the irony of the Obama administration arguing here that the Guantánamo Bay detainees are not 'persons' within the scope of US law guaranteeing religious freedom, in a post-Citizens United world where even corporations are endowed with legal personhood."

Oh snap.


Corporate personhood as a concept is over a century old. Besides, I'd bet that if Obama were a Supreme Court justice he would not have ruled with the majority in that case.
 
2013-07-05 12:48:23 PM  

twat_waffle: I'm sure that subby is aware that Islam only requires fasting during daylight hours during Ramadan, and that TFA states that the force feeding was being done in such a way to accommodate those beliefs.

/still not down with force feeding


The salient point is here.

The feeding of detainees, via neogastric tube, will be carried out by the facility "before dusk and after sunset in order to accommodate their religious practices", they said, "absent any unforeseen emergency or operational issues".

Last part is the kicker.   "absent any unforeseen emergency or operational issues".

Operational issues ?
 
2013-07-05 12:52:30 PM  

jakomo002: twat_waffle: I'm sure that subby is aware that Islam only requires fasting during daylight hours during Ramadan, and that TFA states that the force feeding was being done in such a way to accommodate those beliefs.

/still not down with force feeding

The salient point is here.

The feeding of detainees, via neogastric tube, will be carried out by the facility "before dusk and after sunset in order to accommodate their religious practices", they said, "absent any unforeseen emergency or operational issues".

Last part is the kicker.   "absent any unforeseen emergency or operational issues".

Operational issues ?


You know, like wanting to get it done before the next episode of Dexter is on.
 
2013-07-05 12:54:00 PM  
Don't really give a shiat about their wacky religious nonsense, but indefinite detention is an outrage.
 
2013-07-05 12:55:25 PM  

palelizard: You know, like wanting to get it done before the next episode of Dexter is on.


Or "it's just not practical to have to jam these tubes down 60 guys throats all at night... we only have 4."
 
2013-07-05 12:55:27 PM  

brownribbon: Corporate personhood as a concept is over a century old. Besides, I'd bet that if Obama were a Supreme Court justice he would not have ruled with the majority in that case.


If there's a point you're making, I'm missing it.
 
2013-07-05 12:58:44 PM  

theknuckler_33: My give-a-fark-o-meter is failing to register.


I sort of agree.

Considering that we've imprisoned most of them indefinitely without trial, held many of them for close to a decade, and have resorted to force feeding them through tubes to keep them alive, I don't think that failing to respect daytime fasting on Ramadan is even in the ballpark.
 
2013-07-05 01:00:18 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-05 01:00:52 PM  
Let's see:

1.  The US military allows the prisoners to have a hunger strike and does nothing, outlets like the Guardian would complain.

2.  The US military uses feeding tubes to make sure hunger striking inmates don't die.  The Guardian complains.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 
2013-07-05 01:01:28 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: brownribbon: Corporate personhood as a concept is over a century old. Besides, I'd bet that if Obama were a Supreme Court justice he would not have ruled with the majority in that case.

If there's a point you're making, I'm missing it.


He's probably making the point that this "journalist" doesn't know what the hell she is talking about.
 
2013-07-05 01:03:32 PM  

sprgrss: Let's see:

1.  The US military allows the prisoners to have a hunger strike and does nothing, outlets like the Guardian would complain.

2.  The US military uses feeding tubes to make sure hunger striking inmates don't die.  The Guardian complains.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Actually, you've got one other option. It involves surrender, though.
 
2013-07-05 01:04:50 PM  

Millennium: sprgrss: Let's see:

1.  The US military allows the prisoners to have a hunger strike and does nothing, outlets like the Guardian would complain.

2.  The US military uses feeding tubes to make sure hunger striking inmates don't die.  The Guardian complains.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Actually, you've got one other option. It involves surrender, though.


Give that the Congress has blocked attempts to close Guantanimo, the US military doesn't really have that many options.
 
2013-07-05 01:05:00 PM  

mediablitz: Do I care about "violating Ramadan"? Not really.

Do I care that we are holding people indefinitely? Hell the fark yeah.

ikanreed: Paying a soldier to force feed an innocent(that is to say: not proven guilty) person food who doesn't want it: perfectly ok.
Food stamps: a waste of money, cut cut cut!

Nah. The same people who scream about abortion being murder don't give a shiat if those we are force feeding die OR if poor people starve.


Culture of life FTW!
 
2013-07-05 01:05:14 PM  

sprgrss: Let's see:

1.  The US military allows the prisoners to have a hunger strike and does nothing, outlets like the Guardian would complain.

2.  The US military uses feeding tubes to make sure hunger striking inmates don't die.  The Guardian complains.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Which is why every damned one of them needs to be either tried or released. If released they need to be delivered to either their nation of origin or to the nation of their choice provided it will accept them and given a fat check as some attempt at compensation for holding them prisoner for a significant fraction of their life.
 
2013-07-05 01:06:25 PM  

sprgrss: Let's see:

1.  The US military allows the prisoners to have a hunger strike and does nothing, outlets like the Guardian would complain.

2.  The US military uses feeding tubes to make sure hunger striking inmates don't die.  The Guardian complains.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


Pretty much since in either scenario they are detaining people without trial and should be ashamed.
 
2013-07-05 01:06:55 PM  

sprgrss: Let's see:

1.  The US military allows the prisoners to have a hunger strike and does nothing, outlets like the Guardian would complain.

2.  The US military uses feeding tubes to make sure hunger striking inmates don't die.  The Guardian complains.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


1. The US military holds people indefinitely WITHOUT CHARGE for decades, tortures them, refuses them any contact with the outside world and refuses to give trials (never mind FAIR trials)

Damned it is.
 
2013-07-05 01:08:47 PM  
We should start treating everyone this way.
Even you.
 
2013-07-05 01:11:11 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-05 01:13:19 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: brownribbon: Corporate personhood as a concept is over a century old. Besides, I'd bet that if Obama were a Supreme Court justice he would not have ruled with the majority in that case.

If there's a point you're making, I'm missing it.


Just that the guy who said it is dumb.
 
2013-07-05 01:13:34 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: theknuckler_33: My give-a-fark-o-meter is failing to register.

I sort of agree.

Considering that we've imprisoned most of them indefinitely without trial, held many of them for close to a decade, and have resorted to force feeding them through tubes to keep them alive, I don't think that failing to respect daytime fasting on Ramadan is even in the ballpark.


You know how I know you didn't read TFA?
 
2013-07-05 01:14:33 PM  
I've had a feeding tube shoved down my nose before, so i'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

/about as painful as you imagine. 
//the nurse forgot to mention that my nose would sound like it was being broken when it was inserted. 
///worst noise I've ever heard.
 
2013-07-05 01:15:50 PM  

odinsposse: sprgrss: Let's see:

1.  The US military allows the prisoners to have a hunger strike and does nothing, outlets like the Guardian would complain.

2.  The US military uses feeding tubes to make sure hunger striking inmates don't die.  The Guardian complains.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Pretty much since in either scenario they are detaining people without trial and should be ashamed.


Shouldn't TFA be complaining about that then? Instead of pretending like feeding people on a hunger strike is a thing? I agree with what you said, but TFA is a farking joke.
 
2013-07-05 01:16:55 PM  

jakomo002: It's not a "human rights violation" if you don't think the prisoners are human?

That about right?


Corporations are persons and have rights. Citizens are citizens and do not.
 
2013-07-05 01:23:42 PM  

theknuckler_33: odinsposse: sprgrss: Let's see:

1.  The US military allows the prisoners to have a hunger strike and does nothing, outlets like the Guardian would complain.

2.  The US military uses feeding tubes to make sure hunger striking inmates don't die.  The Guardian complains.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Pretty much since in either scenario they are detaining people without trial and should be ashamed.

Shouldn't TFA be complaining about that then? Instead of pretending like feeding people on a hunger strike is a thing? I agree with what you said, but TFA is a farking joke.


Are you serious?
 
2013-07-05 01:24:06 PM  

theknuckler_33: You know how I know you didn't read TFA?


Considering that I did read the article, please, enlighten me.
 
2013-07-05 01:24:43 PM  

theknuckler_33: My give-a-fark-o-meter is failing to register.


This is a key step on your road to becoming a piece of shiat. If you can't be apathetic to this, you're not trying hard enough.
 
2013-07-05 01:27:43 PM  
RedVentrue: Corporations are persons and have rights. Citizens are citizens and do not.

The prisoners in question are not American citizens.
 
2013-07-05 01:28:50 PM  
Does it seem to anyone else that the US has created a checklist of "things our enemies do that we claim to hate," and are just going down the list checking them off until we're just as bad as them?

Kidnapping: Check
Torture: Check
Mass intentional killing of civilians: Check (in fact we're far worse than every terrorist combined)
Assassination: Check
Institutionalized religious discrimination: Check (thanks Republicans!)
 
2013-07-05 01:29:46 PM  
Lawyers for the detainees described the tube feeding as "barbaric"

It's nice to know these folks think that I was being barbaric when I had to personally, on multiple occasions, insert a feeding tube through my prematurely born daughter's nose in order to feed her because she was too small and weak to suck on a bottle long enough to get all the nutrients she needed. That training I had to take at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia about how to insert the tube, and how far, and how to use a plastic syringe to suck some liquid out through the tube and put it onto pH paper to ensure it was in her stomach and not her lungs so we didn't accidentally cause pulmonary aspiration sure seemed like a course in barbarism.

Maybe they should stick with calling the indefinite detention barbaric, at least they would make some sense.
 
2013-07-05 01:31:17 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: theknuckler_33: You know how I know you didn't read TFA?

Considering that I did read the article, please, enlighten me.


The whole part about them NOT failing to respect the daytime fasting requirements of Ramadan.
 
2013-07-05 01:32:55 PM  

The Numbers: theknuckler_33: odinsposse: sprgrss: Let's see:

1.  The US military allows the prisoners to have a hunger strike and does nothing, outlets like the Guardian would complain.

2.  The US military uses feeding tubes to make sure hunger striking inmates don't die.  The Guardian complains.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Pretty much since in either scenario they are detaining people without trial and should be ashamed.

Shouldn't TFA be complaining about that then? Instead of pretending like feeding people on a hunger strike is a thing? I agree with what you said, but TFA is a farking joke.

Are you serious?


Am I serious that an article about preventing people from killing themselves via starvation is hardly worthy of a raised eyebrow in light of the reason they are there in the first place? Yes, I am entirely serious.
 
2013-07-05 01:33:37 PM  

theknuckler_33: It's nice to know these folks think that I was being barbaric when I had to personally, on multiple occasions, insert a feeding tube through my prematurely born daughter's nose in order to feed her because she was too small and weak to suck on a bottle long enough to get all the nutrients she needed


What war was she declared an enemy combatant in?
 
2013-07-05 01:34:50 PM  

theknuckler_33: Monkeyhouse Zendo: theknuckler_33: You know how I know you didn't read TFA?

Considering that I did read the article, please, enlighten me.

The whole part about them NOT failing to respect the daytime fasting requirements of Ramadan.


Yep, still living up to that "sloppy (reader, writer, thinker)" tag.

theknuckler_33: It's nice to know these folks think that I was being barbaric when I had to personally, on multiple occasions, insert a feeding tube through my prematurely born daughter's nose in order to feed her because she was too small and weak to suck on a bottle long enough to get all the nutrients she needed.


You're not too clear on the concept of "consent", are you?
 
2013-07-05 01:35:33 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: theknuckler_33: My give-a-fark-o-meter is failing to register.

This is a key step on your road to becoming a piece of shiat. If you can't be apathetic to this, you're not trying hard enough.


Sorry if keeping them alive via tube feeding (even doing so in respect to the fasting requirements of Ramadan) is hardly something that bothers me in the slightest considering the circumstances of their continued detainment.

Is it an outrage that these people are being held indefinitely against their will without any plans to release or try them? You're damned right.

Is it an outrage that we are preventing them from killing themselves via starvation by forced tube feeding? No, not even a little bit.
 
2013-07-05 01:38:00 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: theknuckler_33: Monkeyhouse Zendo: theknuckler_33: You know how I know you didn't read TFA?

Considering that I did read the article, please, enlighten me.

The whole part about them NOT failing to respect the daytime fasting requirements of Ramadan.

Yep, still living up to that "sloppy (reader, writer, thinker)" tag.


The feeding of detainees, via neogastric tube, will be carried out by the facility "before dusk and after sunset in order to accommodate their religious practices", they said, "absent any unforeseen emergency or operational issues".
Colonel Greg Julian, director of public affairs for US southern command, said: "We do not force-feed observant Muslims during daylight hours during Ramadan. These policies have been in place for years, and are consistent with our mission to safely detain while supporting the religious practices of those in US custody. If told to do differently, we will do so."
 
You were saying?
 
2013-07-05 01:40:42 PM  

theknuckler_33: Is it an outrage that these people are being held indefinitely against their will without any plans to release or try them? You're damned right.

Is it an outrage that we are preventing them from killing themselves via starvation by forced tube feeding? No, not even a little bit.


Can you explain why one is an outrage but not the other? That would be a very interesting moral and philosophical distinction.
 
2013-07-05 01:41:17 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: theknuckler_33: It's nice to know these folks think that I was being barbaric when I had to personally, on multiple occasions, insert a feeding tube through my prematurely born daughter's nose in order to feed her because she was too small and weak to suck on a bottle long enough to get all the nutrients she needed

What war was she declared an enemy combatant in?


Is it really so hard to distinguish between what led up to the tube feeding and the tube feeding itself? They called tube feeding barbaric. That's farking stupid. What led to these guys being forced to be tube fed... THAT's barbaric.
 
2013-07-05 01:41:30 PM  

theknuckler_33: Lawyers for the detainees described the tube feeding as "barbaric"

It's nice to know these folks think that I was being barbaric when I had to personally, on multiple occasions, insert a feeding tube through my prematurely born daughter's nose in order to feed her because she was too small and weak to suck on a bottle long enough to get all the nutrients she needed. That training I had to take at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia about how to insert the tube, and how far, and how to use a plastic syringe to suck some liquid out through the tube and put it onto pH paper to ensure it was in her stomach and not her lungs so we didn't accidentally cause pulmonary aspiration sure seemed like a course in barbarism.

Maybe they should stick with calling the indefinite detention barbaric, at least they would make some sense.


And when your adult daughter is being held indefinitely without trial (and with no hope of one in the forseeable future) and she is force fed against her wishes via nasogastric tube, your comparison will be relevant.
 
2013-07-05 01:44:25 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: theknuckler_33: Is it an outrage that these people are being held indefinitely against their will without any plans to release or try them? You're damned right.

Is it an outrage that we are preventing them from killing themselves via starvation by forced tube feeding? No, not even a little bit.

Can you explain why one is an outrage but not the other? That would be a very interesting moral and philosophical distinction.


I'm distinguishing between the circumstances of their detainment and the act of preventing them from killing themselves. What if a US citizen were justly tried and convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison by a jury of their peers and that person decided to go on a hunger strike? What should we do with THAT person? If your answer in any way falls under the umbrella of 'prevent them from killing themselves', then you should have a pretty clear idea to the philosophical distinction I am making.
 
2013-07-05 01:44:50 PM  

theknuckler_33: The Numbers: theknuckler_33: odinsposse: sprgrss: Let's see:

1.  The US military allows the prisoners to have a hunger strike and does nothing, outlets like the Guardian would complain.

2.  The US military uses feeding tubes to make sure hunger striking inmates don't die.  The Guardian complains.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Pretty much since in either scenario they are detaining people without trial and should be ashamed.

Shouldn't TFA be complaining about that then? Instead of pretending like feeding people on a hunger strike is a thing? I agree with what you said, but TFA is a farking joke.

Are you serious?

Am I serious that an article about preventing people from killing themselves via starvation is hardly worthy of a raised eyebrow in light of the reason they are there in the first place? Yes, I am entirely serious.


So in your opinion it isn't worth reporting on anything that happens to them unless it constitutes a violation of their rights greater than indefinite detention?
 
2013-07-05 01:45:50 PM  

someonelse: theknuckler_33: Lawyers for the detainees described the tube feeding as "barbaric"

It's nice to know these folks think that I was being barbaric when I had to personally, on multiple occasions, insert a feeding tube through my prematurely born daughter's nose in order to feed her because she was too small and weak to suck on a bottle long enough to get all the nutrients she needed. That training I had to take at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia about how to insert the tube, and how far, and how to use a plastic syringe to suck some liquid out through the tube and put it onto pH paper to ensure it was in her stomach and not her lungs so we didn't accidentally cause pulmonary aspiration sure seemed like a course in barbarism.

Maybe they should stick with calling the indefinite detention barbaric, at least they would make some sense.

And when your adult daughter is being held indefinitely without trial (and with no hope of one in the forseeable future) and she is force fed against her wishes via nasogastric tube, your comparison will be relevant.


So, just to be clear, we should let them starve themselves to death. Have I got that right?
 
Displayed 50 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report