Mail Condemns Guantanamo Abuses

Carrera said:

Today's Mail Opinion pulls no punches over reports of force-feeding at Guantanamo Bay. It's reported that Guantanamo prisoners were forcefully strapped to chairs and tubes inserted up their noses by prison guards. It's the first I heard of the story till today and then I found other reports.
Comments?:
"According to human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, the prisoners have been shackled to their beds to prevent them removing the feeding tubes that have been inserted into their noses. "The notion that a qualified medical practitioner would be prepared to supervise such a procedure (as force-feeding through a tube), goes against all medical ethics, certainly in this country," said Trevor Turner, a director of St. Bartholomew's Hospital of London.
Military authorities maintain that only 36 detainees are currently strikers -- they define a hunger striker as one who has refused at least nine meals. According to U.S. military personnel, a striker is only force-fed when his life is in danger."
en.wikinews.orgU.S. forces food through nose tubes of Guantanamo hunger strikersOpen ↗

I would strongly suggest to our government to remove those tubes....

Carrera said:

Today's Mail Opinion pulls no punches over reports of force-feeding at Guantanamo Bay. It's reported that Guantanamo prisoners were forcefully strapped to chairs and tubes inserted up their noses by prison guards. It's the first I heard of the story till today and then I found other reports.
Comments?:
"According to human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, the prisoners have been shackled to their beds to prevent them removing the feeding tubes that have been inserted into their noses. "The notion that a qualified medical practitioner would be prepared to supervise such a procedure (as force-feeding through a tube), goes against all medical ethics, certainly in this country," said Trevor Turner, a director of St. Bartholomew's Hospital of London.
Military authorities maintain that only 36 detainees are currently strikers -- they define a hunger striker as one who has refused at least nine meals. According to U.S. military personnel, a striker is only force-fed when his life is in danger."
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/U.S._forces_food_through_nose_tubes_of_Guantanamo_hunger_strikers

Daily Mail are approximately 4 years too late on this story.

They (DM) were war cheerleaders as I recall.

limerickman said:

Daily Mail are approximately 4 years too late on this story.

They (DM) were war cheerleaders as I recall.

Yet they headlined on Abu Hamza.

wolfix said:

I would strongly suggest to our government to remove those tubes....

Why do you think that?

stevebaby said:

Why do you think that?

Simple.... America is about freedom of choices.
Choice of religion, choice of voter preference, and choice of lifestyle.

So America chose to incarcerate this individual for a reason. This individual chose not to eat. To me , this is infringing on this individual's religious freedom. It was his choice not to eat so he can go see Allah. Our government is wrong. Pull the tube.

As far as his incarceration, the question is ......... "Is it in America'a best interest to have this guy incarcerated or running free on the street?" And that is what American's have to be concerned with. "What is in their best interests?? It's that simple.

The danger is when you don't put these individuals on trial. I also think POW's should be treated humanely no matter who they are. Added to that, extremists will use such instances as propaganda as they have done with Israel in the past.
If need be, lock them up but treat then according to geneva rules and everybody will support your stance.

wolfix said:

Simple.... America is about freedom of choices.
Choice of religion, choice of voter preference, and choice of lifestyle.

So America chose to incarcerate this individual for a reason. This individual chose not to eat. To me , this is infringing on this individual's religious freedom. It was his choice not to eat so he can go see Allah. Our government is wrong. Pull the tube.

As far as his incarceration, the question is ......... "Is it in America'a best interest to have this guy incarcerated or running free on the street?" And that is what American's have to be concerned with. "What is in their best interests?? It's that simple.

And with good reason. He described the U.K. as a toilet but there were minefields outside so he couldn't leave as it were. It didn't stop him picking up 500 quid a week in benefits, though.
The Brits didn't arrest Hamza anyway. They never would have acted. It was all down to an extradition order from the U.S. and I blame the authorities for funding him more than I blame him. Another typical example of why Pakistan's president is fed up with Blair harbouring extremists.

FredC said:

Yet they headlined on Abu Hamza.

Carrera said:

And with good reason. He described the U.K. as a toilet but there were minefields outside so he couldn't leave as it were. It didn't stop him picking up 500 quid a week in benefits, though.
The Brits didn't arrest Hamza anyway. They never would have acted. It was all down to an extradition order from the U.S. and I blame the authorities for funding him more than I blame him. Another typical example of why Pakistan's president is fed up with Blair harbouring extremists.

Absolute Bollacks. It was down to an agreed concensus of charges between the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Hamza was arrested and detained under the 1986 Public Order Act with charges, and further impending charges. Thus was remanded in Belmarsh prison.
I'm afraid that Lim will bar you from this site, and I for one will be glad to see you go. Polemics are fine, but you seem to have slipped into your stupid biased rhetoric again.

Carrera said:

It didn't stop him picking up 500 quid a week in benefits, though.

You're sterotyping Carerra.

I'm warning you formally now - desist or I will suspend your account.

Have I made myself clear?

Carrera said:

The Brits didn't arrest Hamza anyway. .

That's a lie - he was arrested and detained in Belmarsh Prison.
How else can someone be tried in the British courte unless they're arrested
by British Police?

You really are a fool and I believe a racist/bigot.

wolfix said:

...As far as his incarceration, the question is ......... "Is it in America'a best interest to have this guy incarcerated or running free on the street?" And that is what American's have to be concerned with. "What is in their best interests?? It's that simple.

Very good, Wolfix, but doesn't the United States have a judicial system that it can use? I seem to have seen plenty of US TV shows / movies depicting Courts. I guess I was just jumping to conclusions, but I thought you might actually have some real ones over there.

[font=Comic Sans MS]Sure, we have a judicial system. I think it is a "right' in this country for it's citizens. Citizens being the key word. Plus, the courts do get backlogged. [/font]The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay that are not citizens do not have the "rights" that are given to American citizens. What their rights are should be debated. That should be on the schedule for next years Congress.

wolfix said:

[font=Comic Sans MS]Sure, we have a judicial system. I think it is a "right' in this country for it's citizens. Citizens being the key word...

So it has a "right" to incacerate-without-trial non-US citizens who are walking non-US streets?

wolfix said:

[font=Comic Sans MS]...Plus, the courts do get backlogged...

I don't see you sending your court-clogging petty criminals across to Guantanamo Bay in an effort to free up the backlog, yet you scour the World looking for potential new residents.

wolfix said:

[font=Comic Sans MS]...The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay that are not citizens do not have the "rights" that are given to American citizens. What their rights are should be debated. That should be on the schedule for next years Congress.

If the agents of another Nation were to pluck you off the street, whisk you over to a lock-up on their side of the World and then inform you that you don't have any "rights" on their turf because you are not one of their citizens, would you not feel that maybe, just maybe, their claims of justice and liberty were just a little out of tune with reality?
If you have to break the rules to protect the rules, something is not quite right. The United States impresses me in a lot of its endeavours, but this is not one of them.

"Is it in America'a best interest to have this guy incarcerated or running free on the street?"

wolfix said:

[font=Comic Sans MS]Sure, we have a judicial system. I think it is a "right' in this country for it's citizens. Citizens being the key word. Plus, the courts do get backlogged. [/font]The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay that are not citizens do not have the "rights" that are given to American citizens. What their rights are should be debated. That should be on the schedule for next years Congress.

If non-us citizens don't have rights under us law then they have no obligation to obey it either.
In fact,non-us citizens do have rights under us law (and obligations).Citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with it.The jurisdiction is what counts.
The us itself has obligations under international law which it has repeatedly failed to comply with,particularly with regard to the treatment of prisoners of war and their right to a speedy and fair trial.The us has virtually torn up Magna Carta and habeas corpus in contravention of its own constitution,but,of course,these are all just "pieces of paper".
As Huey Long said"When fascism comes to the united states,it will come wrapped in the american flag.". Well,it's here. Imprisonment without trial and spying on its own citizens,attacks on other countries to steal their resources,deliberate killing of civilians,use of weapons of mass destruction,assassination...the us is the most dangerous rogue state in the world today.
It's time for the UN to intervene militarily,(solely to "liberate" the american people from their autocratic oppressors,of course) to bring "regime change" and introduce "democracy". 😄 😄 😄

It's an easy option to ban me but I'm afraid that doesn't stop the free press. I have an article on the Hamza case to be published soon in the newspaper (I'm not saying which one).
Another point is, real life isn't a soap box where contrasting information will be censored. If you guys want to debate within a plastic world of your own and kick anyone out who challenges your views, don't kid yourself the real world is one where every challenge can be simply deleted.
You were also wrong on the Aramaic question as I submitted that view to our classics board for everyone else to comment so that's one point for a start. And Chavez has only just attacked your defence of Argentina which he claims is illegal.
What makes you the judge and jury that everything you say is right and everything I say is wrong. How can you be so sure?

FredC said:

Absolute Bollacks. It was down to an agreed concensus of charges between the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Hamza was arrested and detained under the 1986 Public Order Act with charges, and further impending charges. Thus was remanded in Belmarsh prison.
I'm afraid that Lim will bar you from this site, and I for one will be glad to see you go. Polemics are fine, but you seem to have slipped into your stupid biased rhetoric again.

It simply amazes me you and Fred apparently support Abu Hamza. 😕 Have you read the statements he made that were used in his court trial? This is a guy who gloated over the shuttle disaster, calling the astronauts a "Trinity Of Evil" and I even saw him directly tell Tim Sebastian on Hard Talk what his theories were on that disaster, amongst over rantings that left even TS speechless.

limerickman said:

You're sterotyping Carerra.

I'm warning you formally now - desist or I will suspend your account.

Have I made myself clear?

That's a lie - he was arrested and detained in Belmarsh Prison.
How else can someone be tried in the British courte unless they're arrested
by British Police?

You really are a fool and I believe a racist/bigot.

Carrera said:

It simply amazes me you and Fred apparently support Abu Hamza. 😕 Have you read the statements he made that were used in his court trial? This is a guy who gloated over the shuttle disaster, calling the astronauts a "Trinity Of Evil" and I even saw him directly tell Tim Sebastian on Hard Talk what his theories were on that disaster, amongst over rantings that left even TS speechless.

You posted another series of lies and false allegations.

On a different topic, I'm not a supporter of Hamza.

Sure, I posted an allegation. It's my personal allegation and you and others have the right to dismiss it, criticize it or even prove me wrong. It's no different than Wurm's allegation that Bush was involved in a conspiracy plot.
It's not as if I'm alone in my condemnation of Hamza. Tim Sebastion has give many Israeli or American general a tough going over on Hard Talk but he winded up raising his voice to Hamza and almost getting out of his chair to leave - it seemed to me.
Abu Hamza has been featured in several videos which I happen to have viewed myself - or parts of them. Let me say they're pretty strong (I daren't quote them here) and my gripe is nothing was done about him for years.
My theory and I repeat it's a theory and opinion (not something I'm reporting as proven) is that possibly Hamza's rantings over the shuttle may well have upset somebody in Washington which is why they kicked up a fuss, calling for extradition. Hamza was very vocal over that incident.
Here, bear in mind I'm not calling for Hamza to have been extradited to the U.S. and on from there to Cuba as I oppose that policy. What I do think is that Hamza should have been tackled along time ago and just stopped. All they had to do was to stop him from his incitements. 😕

limerickman said:

You posted another series of lies and false allegations.

On a different topic, I'm not a supporter of Hamza.

On a different theme, Piers Morgan seems to be writing for The Mail and was featured last weekend.
Many may recall Piers was the Mirror Editor who was sacked for publishing true-to-life photos of what was actually taking place in Iraq. The man was hounded by the BBC, ranted at by the public and called a traitor.
Now who's been proven right? Piers Morgan that's who. Now we know the beatings handed out to Iraqis wasn't fiction but fact and a lot of people owe Piers an apology.
Despite their brief support for the war, it didn't last long in The Mail and most Mail journalists are against the war.
At least they're giving Piers a break too.

Carrera said:

Sure, I posted an allegation.:

Actually you posted more lies.

You stated that the British police didn't arrest Hamza.

They did arrest Hamza.

You also stated that Hamza was in receipt of benefits and attempted create a stereotype.