http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/mos-def-force-fed-guantanamo-detainee-article-1.1393221
QuoteYasiin Bey, the actor and activist formerly known as Mos Def, submitted to the type of force-feeding imposed on hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay — and it wasn't pretty.
The Brooklyn-born entertainer joined with the human rights group Reprieve to demonstrate what the hunger strikers are enduring at the U.S. military lockup. The demonstration was videotaped and posted online Monday.
In the graphic footage, Bey, dressed in an orange jumpsuit, writhes in his restraints, then wretches and coughs as a feeding tube is inserted up his nose and down into his stomach.
When the tube comes out and is about to be re-inserted, Bey pleads for those administering the feeding to stop and partially breaks free from his restraint.
"This is me, please stop, I can't do it," Bey says. A voice off camera then told the group to "stop."
Then, Bey is shown weeping and is comforted by a member of the group.
The U.S. government has used the detention center on the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to hold terrorism suspects apprehended since 9/11.
Detainees upset over the handling of their Korans during cell searches launched a hunger strike in February. The hunger strike has grown to 106 participants, 45 of whom were being force fed due to weight loss as of Monday, according to the Pentagon.
Called "enteral feeding," the force-feeding begins by restraining the hunger striker in an upright chair, followed by insertion of the feeding tube. A nutritional shake is forced into the detainee's stomach via a large syringe attached to the back of the tube.
The Pentagon asserts that he practice is humane and necessary for the detainees' safety and survival.
Human rights activists claim the force feeding amounts to torture.
A federal judge hearing a Syrian detainee's suit for a halt to force-feeding ruled Monday that she lacks jurisdiction to rule, but said the practice appears to violate international law.
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler said there appears to be a consensus that force-feeding amounts to inhumane treatment and she noted President Obama has the power to address the issue.
Obama has sought to close the prison since taking office in 2009, and his administration ruled that 86 current detainees are clear for release to their home governments—most of them Yemeni.
Instability in Yemen and other countries, however, has prevented the transfers abroad, while Congress has repeatedly barred transfer of prisoners into the U.S.
I had no desire to watch the video, but I am curious as to what is being agitated for. I get that human rights activists are saying this treatment is humane, but what's their alternate solution (presumably there is one though I don't think I've heard it)?
Everyone just has to be peaceful and calmly discuss their problems and come to equable solutions that everybody can live with.
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 08:33:48 AMI get that human rights activists are saying this treatment is humane
:hmm:
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 08:33:48 AM
I had no desire to watch the video, but I am curious as to what is being agitated for. I get that human rights activists are saying this treatment is humane, but what's their alternate solution (presumably there is one though I don't think I've heard it)?
Presumably to release them from Gitmo.
He was pretty good in Ghostbusters.
So, what is worst? Force feed them? Or let them starve themselves to death?
Quote from: lustindarkness on July 09, 2013, 10:19:45 AM
So, what is worst? Force feed them? Or let them starve themselves to death?
Letting them starve. Then they win.
Quote from: lustindarkness on July 09, 2013, 10:19:45 AM
So, what is worst? Force feed them? Or let them starve themselves to death?
Yeah, I don't really see the logic. Of course, I never quite understood hunger strikes in the first place.
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 10:27:02 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on July 09, 2013, 10:19:45 AM
So, what is worst? Force feed them? Or let them starve themselves to death?
Yeah, I don't really see the logic. Of course, I never quite understood hunger strikes in the first place.
Well isn't the point of a hunger strike to get sympathy/pressure from the outside to get changes made?
Worked for Mahatma.
Weren't most of the hunger strikers cleared for rlease 4 years ago? I wouldn't have much of an appetite if I was kept indefinately in a prison camp without trial either.
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 10:29:19 AM
Well isn't the point of a hunger strike to get sympathy/pressure from the outside to get changes made?
I suppose. But I just have a hard time understanding why anyone has empathy for someone harming himself by not eating.
Quote from: Gups on July 09, 2013, 10:34:08 AM
Worked for Mahatma.
Weren't most of the hunger strikers cleared for rlease 4 years ago? I wouldn't have much of an appetite if I was kept indefinately in a prison camp without trial either.
They get all the free Froot Loops they want. Sounds like a vacation to me.
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 10:34:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 10:29:19 AM
Well isn't the point of a hunger strike to get sympathy/pressure from the outside to get changes made?
I suppose. But I just have a hard time understanding why anyone has empathy for someone harming himself by not eating.
Yeah, I'm with you there. Never got that.
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 10:36:02 AM
Quote from: Gups on July 09, 2013, 10:34:08 AM
Worked for Mahatma.
Weren't most of the hunger strikers cleared for rlease 4 years ago? I wouldn't have much of an appetite if I was kept indefinately in a prison camp without trial either.
They get all the free Froot Loops they want. Sounds like a vacation to me.
You should deffo give it a try.
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 10:34:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 10:29:19 AM
Well isn't the point of a hunger strike to get sympathy/pressure from the outside to get changes made?
I suppose. But I just have a hard time understanding why anyone has empathy for someone harming himself by not eating.
Well, sometimes people start to wonder about *why* the person is starving themselves. Which is what the striker wanted in the first place.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 09, 2013, 10:39:15 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 10:34:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 10:29:19 AM
Well isn't the point of a hunger strike to get sympathy/pressure from the outside to get changes made?
I suppose. But I just have a hard time understanding why anyone has empathy for someone harming himself by not eating.
Well, sometimes people start to wonder about *why* the person is starving themselves. Which is what the striker wanted in the first place.
:yes:
It garners attention.
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 10:34:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 10:29:19 AM
Well isn't the point of a hunger strike to get sympathy/pressure from the outside to get changes made?
I suppose. But I just have a hard time understanding why anyone has empathy for someone harming himself by not eating.
A conservative that is unmoved by someone starving to death? Unheard of!
Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2013, 10:41:08 AM
A conservative that is unmoved by someone starving to death? Unheard of!
Whether it's by choice factors heavily into whether or not I give a shit.
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 10:40:52 AM
:yes:
It garners attention.
To me it just makes the person look foolish. Would a "repeatedly bang your head on the wall" strike have the same effect?
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 10:44:19 AM
To me it just makes the person look foolish.
Well, at least you're taking the half a second to think them foolish. Half a second more than they'd have gotten.
For people who have been thrown into a modern oubliette, there's not a whole lot of other options.
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 10:44:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 10:40:52 AM
:yes:
It garners attention.
To me it just makes the person look foolish. Would a "repeatedly bang your head on the wall" strike have the same effect?
Well presumably it is less damaging than beating one's head against the wall. :mellow:
Besides, if it gets at least some people to pay attention, that's a positive. What would you do if you wanted to get something to change while sitting in prison?
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 10:44:19 AM
To me it just makes the person look foolish. Would a "repeatedly bang your head on the wall" strike have the same effect?
So foolish that we're tying them down to prevent them from achieving their goal.
A hunger strike is a very powerful gesture. Guy is putting his money where his mouth is. Just like that Buddhist monk who torched himself in Saigon.
As a tactic it's been successfully used on a number of occassions.
Gandhi saved thosands of lives in his 1947 hunger strike. The IRA hunger strike of 1981 achiieved most of the prisoners demands and was a huge propaganda coup for them
The current strike gets Gitmo back in the news.
I'm not arguing whether it's effective-- obviously it is. I just don't understand the psychology of why it's effective.
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 11:11:48 AM
I'm not arguing whether it's effective-- obviously it is. I just don't understand the psychology of why it's effective.
You don't understand how "I believe this so strongly that I'm willing to risk my well being to support it" is effective?
Not really. Obviously they want things they don't have. That's pretty much a requirement for being a prisoner.
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 11:35:11 AM
Not really. Obviously they want things they don't have. That's pretty much a requirement for being a prisoner.
Other options for a prisoner to get attention are....
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2013, 11:24:04 AM
You don't understand how "I believe this so strongly that I'm willing to risk my well being to support it" is effective?
No. I don't see how that relates in any way to me giving a shit. Some person wants to starve or kill themselves to get some attention? We have plenty of attention whores already, but knock yourself out.
Quote from: frunk on July 09, 2013, 11:37:04 AM
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 11:35:11 AM
Not really. Obviously they want things they don't have. That's pretty much a requirement for being a prisoner.
Other options for a prisoner to get attention are....
I don't know? I don't see how that's relevant.
I always took hunger strikes as a demonstration of willpower/conviction in a cause. It takes a lot of discipline to starve yourself.
Quote from: Syt on July 09, 2013, 11:47:24 AM
I always took hunger strikes as a demonstration of willpower/conviction in a cause. It takes a lot of discipline to starve yourself.
Being willing to blow yourself up already demonstrates that.
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 11:48:07 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 09, 2013, 11:47:24 AM
I always took hunger strikes as a demonstration of willpower/conviction in a cause. It takes a lot of discipline to starve yourself.
Being willing to blow yourself up already demonstrates that.
Not to that extent. Hunger strike requires you to constantly hurt yourself 24/7 for weeks.
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 11:48:07 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 09, 2013, 11:47:24 AM
I always took hunger strikes as a demonstration of willpower/conviction in a cause. It takes a lot of discipline to starve yourself.
Being willing to blow yourself up already demonstrates that.
That is one moment of strong will, not days, weeks or months of continued self deprivation.
Quote from: frunk on July 09, 2013, 11:37:04 AM
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 11:35:11 AM
Not really. Obviously they want things they don't have. That's pretty much a requirement for being a prisoner.
Other options for a prisoner to get attention are....
Dirty protest
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 11:48:07 AM
Being willing to blow yourself up already demonstrates that.
Blowing yourself up demonstrates commitment to the jihadist cause. Starving yourself demonstrates commitment to the terms of incarceration cause.
Hunger strikes are also a way to make the captor look bad. No prison warden wants their prisoners to die on him for avoidable reasons.
Cause a prison is responsible for the well being of it's inmates?
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 11:45:02 AMNo. I don't see how that relates in any way to me giving a shit. Some person wants to starve or kill themselves to get some attention? We have plenty of attention whores already, but knock yourself out.
Oh, I misunderstood your question. I thought you were saying you didn't understand why someone would do such a thing.
It appears you were saying you didn't understand why you should give a shit. That's a question you have to answer for yourself; it appears you've already done so.
Quote from: DGuller on July 09, 2013, 11:51:05 AM
Not to that extent. Hunger strike requires you to constantly hurt yourself 24/7 for weeks.
Ok, but that's just a matter of degree. I am already convinced that they are devoted to their cause. We already knew that when they were placed there in the first place. Nothing changes because we know they are super-duper dedicated.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2013, 11:58:22 AM
Blowing yourself up demonstrates commitment to the jihadist cause. Starving yourself demonstrates commitment to the terms of incarceration cause.
Ok, but to what avail? Prisoners are unhappy with terms of incarceration, news at 11? Does that change because they are super-unhappy?(see above)
I find the reactions of Max and Scary Spice curious.
Have hunger strikes become so common that they have lost their effect? I am not sure that is true. As a society (writ large) are we becoming immune to the plight of others? Perhaps.
It's not a plight if it's intentionally self-inflicted.
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2013, 12:01:21 PM
Oh, I misunderstood your question. I thought you were saying you didn't understand why someone would do such a thing.
It appears you were saying you didn't understand why you should give a shit. That's a question you have to answer for yourself; it appears you've already done so.
You almost got it. I'm trying to understand why something like a hunger strike has such effect on others.
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 12:24:35 PM
It's not a plight if it's intentionally self-inflicted.
Exactly.
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 12:24:35 PM
It's not a plight if it's intentionally self-inflicted.
:huh: The plight in question is being held without trial. The hunger strike is the means of calling attention to the plight, not the plight itself.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2013, 12:19:23 PM
I find the reactions of Max and Scary Spice curious.
Have hunger strikes become so common that they have lost their effect? I am not sure that is true. As a society (writ large) are we becoming immune to the plight of others? Perhaps.
I'm not sure about lack of empathy for members of out groups being new development. I think there's always been people with Max and derspiess' attitude. Societies can listen to them more or less on various issues - and I think that there's not one society here it, but multiple sometimes overlapping, sometimes discrete ones.
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 12:26:56 PMYou almost got it. I'm trying to understand why something like a hunger strike has such effect on others.
Makes sense. Empathy must seem puzzling if you lack it yourself.
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2013, 12:36:24 PM
Makes sense. Empathy must seem puzzling if you lack it yourself.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 12:39:33 PM:rolleyes:
What?
You have no empathy for these people, right? Isn't that the substance of what you're saying?
Other people have, and thus the hunger strikes makes an impression on them. You find it puzzling.
Where is that inaccurate?
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 12:35:09 PM
:huh: The plight in question is being held without trial. The hunger strike is the means of calling attention to the plight, not the plight itself.
I have specifically and intentionally not mentioned that plight or lack thereof. What I am talking about is why anyone would pay attention to what is essentially a temper tantrum.
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2013, 12:49:29 PM
What?
You have no empathy for these people, right? Isn't that the substance of what you're saying?
Other people have, and thus the hunger strikes makes an impression on them. You find it puzzling.
Where is that inaccurate?
You simply said I lack empathy, implying that I lacked any whatsoever. But thanks for "clarifying"-- I do pretty much lack empathy for someone voluntarily starving himself and don't understand how that act is supposed to endear me to his cause.
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 12:52:32 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 12:35:09 PM
:huh: The plight in question is being held without trial. The hunger strike is the means of calling attention to the plight, not the plight itself.
I have specifically and intentionally not mentioned that plight or lack thereof. What I am talking about is why anyone would pay attention to what is essentially a temper tantrum.
Because the individuals in question have no other recourse? I also think that you're wrong as it isn't essentially a temper tantrum.
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 12:52:32 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 12:35:09 PM
:huh: The plight in question is being held without trial. The hunger strike is the means of calling attention to the plight, not the plight itself.
I have specifically and intentionally not mentioned that plight or lack thereof. What I am talking about is why anyone would pay attention to what is essentially a temper tantrum.
You are acting like they have all sorts of options.
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 12:53:22 PMYou simply said I lack empathy, implying that I lacked any whatsoever. But thanks for "clarifying"--
You're welcome :)
I'm sure you have empathy for a wide range of people in a wide range of situations.
QuoteI do pretty much lack empathy for someone voluntarily starving himself and don't understand how that act is supposed to endear me to his cause.
I don't think "endear to his cause" is an accurate description of what's happening when people take notice of the hunger strike.
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 12:57:17 PM
You are acting like they have all sorts of options.
They could've contacted a sympathetic Congressman to make them aware of the fact.
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 12:52:32 PM
I have specifically and intentionally not mentioned that plight or lack thereof. What I am talking about is why anyone would pay attention to what is essentially a temper tantrum.
It's not essentially a temper tantrum. A temper tantrum is a costless, transparent ploy.
As to your earlier question about why should we care if they're super-unhappy, it's because of our humanity. Ostensibly that's the same reason we let them exercise and read and give them adequate food and shelter.
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 11:46:03 AM
Quote from: frunk on July 09, 2013, 11:37:04 AM
Other options for a prisoner to get attention are....
I don't know? I don't see how that's relevant.
Relevant to what, why you should care? That's up to you. Why they are doing this? Because they have few other options, and it doesn't look like they'll be leaving this prison any time soon if ever.
Quote from: DGuller on July 09, 2013, 01:01:10 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 12:57:17 PM
You are acting like they have all sorts of options.
They could've contacted a sympathetic Congressman to make them aware of the fact.
Why would they trust a US politician at this point, when even Obama went back on the promise to shut down Gitmo? Serious question.
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 01:25:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 09, 2013, 01:01:10 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 12:57:17 PM
You are acting like they have all sorts of options.
They could've contacted a sympathetic Congressman to make them aware of the fact.
Why would they trust a US politician at this point, when even Obama went back on the promise to shut down Gitmo? Serious question.
But D was joking so...:unsure:
Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 01:25:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 09, 2013, 01:01:10 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 12:57:17 PM
You are acting like they have all sorts of options.
They could've contacted a sympathetic Congressman to make them aware of the fact.
Why would they trust a US politician at this point, when even Obama went back on the promise to shut down Gitmo? Serious question.
But D was joking so...:unsure:
Sometimes it's hard to tell with him.
:(
Quote from: frunk on July 09, 2013, 01:08:29 PM
Relevant to what, why you should care? That's up to you. Why they are doing this? Because they have few other options, and it doesn't look like they'll be leaving this prison any time soon if ever.
I know why they do it. It is because people pay attention to it. The question is why people pay attention to it.
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 12:57:17 PM
You are acting like they have all sorts of options.
I am not. Their options or lack thereof are not relevant to the question as I have pointed out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2013, 01:01:36 PM
It's not essentially a temper tantrum. A temper tantrum is a costless, transparent ploy.
It is not unheard of for a child to hold their breath until they pass out as part of a temper tantrum. While a child may be unaware of the full consequences of their actions, an adult prisoner is not.
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 02:07:05 PM
I know why they do it. It is because people pay attention to it. The question is why people pay attention to it.
The presumption is that the controllers of a prison are responsible for the life of the prisoner. If prisoners start dying all over the place at a prison the wardens are held accountable. If the prisoner is a suicide risk measures are taken to prevent that from happening. A hunger strike equates to "if things don't change I'll kill myself", and so it should be paid attention to. What is an appropriate response is a different question.
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 02:07:05 PM
I am not. Their options or lack thereof are not relevant to the question as I have pointed out.
The amount of options someone has to redress their grievances is not only relevant, it is pretty much the heart of the question. If something as severe as a large-scale hunger strike is taking place, it is because the prisoners lack less severe options of making their plight known.
Which of course begs the question: do you even consider being held indefinitely without trial under adverse conditions a plight? If not, it's obvious why the hunger strike makes no sense to you or why you liken it to a child's temper tantrum.
I think I have stated several times now that the reason for the strike is not in question. It is known about as much as these things can be known. It is even a very effective tactic for people in that situation to take.
Again the question is not why do they use an effective tactic. The question is why is this tactic effective in general. Completely orthogonal to that question is whether in this instance someone's situation can be considered a plight. That question can only serve as a red herring in this discussion.
Because many people feel empathy for those who are stuck in unrelentingly grim situations, especially when those unrelentingly grim situations are supposedly carried out in their names and in the name of justice.
Still haven't heard any suggestions for what they should have done instead.
Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2013, 03:36:57 PM
Because many people feel empathy for those who are stuck in unrelentingly grim situations, especially when those unrelentingly grim situations are supposedly carried out in their names and in the name of justice.
Certainly. And no doubt they would feel even more empathy if said people worsened their situation voluntarily.
The question is "why?". Actually it is not so much a question as an expression of wonderment. I was not expecting an answer, I was expecting comprehension.
Where I think you go wrong Max, is your underlying assumption that they are "voluntarily" making their situation worse. You are ignoring the fact they are doing this to improve their situation.
Your position is akin to "I dont understand why some skinny Indian dude is voluntarily making his situation worse. life in colonial India sucks. We all know that."
:frusty:
For the fifth time, I understand why they are doing it. Anyone who doesn't understand that by now isn't going to. I am finished with that line of questioning.
I don't think I have any difficulty understanding the concept behind this - it is a demand for attention. It is saying "Hey, you assholes, FUCKING LOOK AT WHAT IS GOING ON!".
That is either noble or ridiculous, based on the situation in question.
I, as much as it is possible, understand the anger and frustration of those people still stuck, seemingly forever, in that prison.
However, my understanding of the overall situation also means that their hunger strike doesn't change my views on it, since I was not unaware of the circumstances before the hunger strike.
It sucks. The entire thing really, really sucks. I wish I knew how to "fix" it, but I don't. The fact that Obama cannot figure it out, despite being the person with the most power, most knowledge, and a lot of desire (I believe both personally and poltiically) to fix it suggests to me that there really isn't much of a fix.
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 03:57:42 PM
:frusty:
For the fifth time, I understand why they are doing it. Anyone who doesn't understand that by now isn't going to. I am finished with that line of questioning.
I guess what makes people question your understanding might be instances like when you compare it to a child's temper tantrum.
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 04:02:50 PM
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 03:57:42 PM
:frusty:
For the fifth time, I understand why they are doing it. Anyone who doesn't understand that by now isn't going to. I am finished with that line of questioning.
I guess what makes people question your understanding might be instances like when you compare it to a child's temper tantrum.
But it is very much like a child's temper tantrum.
It is an attempt to draw attention to oneself using any means necessary.
That doesn't make it a bad thing per se, but the analogy is perfectly apt.
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 03:35:36 PMAgain the question is not why do they use an effective tactic. The question is why is this tactic effective in general.
I think several people in this thread have admirably addressed that question - it's an appeal to our common humanity and our distaste for suffering; it's a severe step which causes people to wonder what could be happening which is so bad that it requires a hunger strike as a last ditch effort to try and resolve it; it forces us, through its severity and nonviolence, to examine whether or not this enterprise being carried out in the name of justice is in fact just. Etc.
Are you skimming past those responses, or are you not agreeing with them?
Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:05:40 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 04:02:50 PM
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 03:57:42 PM
:frusty:
For the fifth time, I understand why they are doing it. Anyone who doesn't understand that by now isn't going to. I am finished with that line of questioning.
I guess what makes people question your understanding might be instances like when you compare it to a child's temper tantrum.
But it is very much like a child's temper tantrum.
Except that they are adults, presumably with more reasoning faculties and options than children, and their situation is far more dire than 99.9% of temper-tantruming children might be experiencing.
That is why the context here is important, as I argued earlier. No one would use the word "tantrum" to describe the actions of a child freaking out to being kidnapped, for example. We reserve the word tantrum, generally, to denote an a) unacceptable and b) petulant type of behavior in response to a child not being given something he wants.
Do you think derspeiss means "It is an attempt to draw attention to oneself using any means necessary" when he refers to a "tantrum" in this case?
Fair enough, I can agree with the objection on the grounds that the term innately implies a level of pettiness that isn't really fairly applied to someone willing to kill themselves over the injustice of their situation.
What I still have yet to hear though is some suggestion from anyone about what the US (in general, or their jailers in particular) ought to do other than force feeding them. No question that force feeding someone is pretty horrible, but it is most certainly neither inhumane or torture.
Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:05:40 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 04:02:50 PM
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 03:57:42 PM
:frusty:
For the fifth time, I understand why they are doing it. Anyone who doesn't understand that by now isn't going to. I am finished with that line of questioning.
I guess what makes people question your understanding might be instances like when you compare it to a child's temper tantrum.
But it is very much like a child's temper tantrum.
It is an attempt to draw attention to oneself using any means necessary.
That doesn't make it a bad thing per se, but the analogy is perfectly apt.
I dont think so. A temper tantrum is by definition a loss of emotional control. This is the exact opposite.
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 04:08:10 PM
I think several people in this thread have admirably addressed that question - it's an appeal to our common humanity and our distaste for suffering; it's a severe step which causes people to wonder what could be happening which is so bad that it requires a hunger strike as a last ditch effort to try and resolve it; it forces us, through its severity and nonviolence, to examine whether or not this enterprise being carried out in the name of justice is in fact just. Etc.
Are you skimming past those responses, or are you not agreeing with them?
I'm not Max, but this is about as good an explanation as can be made. And it wasn't really stated so clearly up until now. People seemed very stuck on explaining that it is effective, not so much on the "why"?
I still don't fully understand it why hunger strikes tend to resonate so much. If I see someone harming himself to get attention, I'm more apt to think lesser of him and ignore his cause. But then again, emotionally manipulative ploys are a bit of a pet peeve for me.
Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:16:35 PM
What I still have yet to hear though is some suggestion from anyone about what the US (in general, or their jailers in particular) ought to do other than force feeding them. No question that force feeding someone is pretty horrible, but it is most certainly neither inhumane or torture.
I am not sure what you inquiry has to do with what is being discussed here. Which is the apparant lack of understanding by Max and Spicey as to why they are going on a hunger strike - despite Max's protestations to the contrary.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2013, 04:21:11 PM
I am not sure what you inquiry has to do with what is being discussed here. Which is the apparant lack of understanding by Max and Spicey as to why they are going on a hunger strike - despite Max's protestations to the contrary.
That's not it at all. We know why they do it-- because it works. The question is, why does it work?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2013, 04:21:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:16:35 PM
What I still have yet to hear though is some suggestion from anyone about what the US (in general, or their jailers in particular) ought to do other than force feeding them. No question that force feeding someone is pretty horrible, but it is most certainly neither inhumane or torture.
I am not sure what you inquiry has to do with what is being discussed here. Which is the apparant lack of understanding by Max and Spicey as to why they are going on a hunger strike - despite Max's protestations to the contrary.
It is however the issue I raised in my OP.
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 04:08:10 PM
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 03:35:36 PMAgain the question is not why do they use an effective tactic. The question is why is this tactic effective in general.
I think several people in this thread have admirably addressed that question - it's an appeal to our common humanity and our distaste for suffering; it's a severe step which causes people to wonder what could be happening which is so bad that it requires a hunger strike as a last ditch effort to try and resolve it; it forces us, through its severity and nonviolence, to examine whether or not this enterprise being carried out in the name of justice is in fact just.
But the thing is, we're not unaware of their situation. And for the most part, we've already decided how we feel about it. We can look at it essentially 1 of 3 ways--either their incarceration is just; it's completely unjust; or it's necessary even if it's not exactly just according to our standards of justice. Yes, there are more nuanced positions possible, but that's the jist of it. I think views of most Americans probably come down more or less to the 3rd option. But since we've already come to whichever view we hold, why should their dedication to their cause cause us to change our opinion?
Quote from: dps on July 09, 2013, 05:37:33 PM
But the thing is, we're not unaware of their situation. And for the most part, we've already decided how we feel about it. We can look at it essentially 1 of 3 ways--either their incarceration is just; it's completely unjust; or it's necessary even if it's not exactly just according to our standards of justice. Yes, there are more nuanced positions possible, but that's the jist of it. I think views of most Americans probably come down more or less to the 3rd option. But since we've already come to whichever view we hold, why should their dedication to their cause cause us to change our opinion?
It's one thing to be aware of a situation, it's another thing to be forced to really contemplate it. It's a difference between a statistic and a tragedy, so to speak.
Quote from: DGuller on July 09, 2013, 06:36:07 PM
Quote from: dps on July 09, 2013, 05:37:33 PM
But the thing is, we're not unaware of their situation. And for the most part, we've already decided how we feel about it. We can look at it essentially 1 of 3 ways--either their incarceration is just; it's completely unjust; or it's necessary even if it's not exactly just according to our standards of justice. Yes, there are more nuanced positions possible, but that's the jist of it. I think views of most Americans probably come down more or less to the 3rd option. But since we've already come to whichever view we hold, why should their dedication to their cause cause us to change our opinion?
It's one thing to be aware of a situation, it's another thing to be forced to really contemplate it. It's a difference between a statistic and a tragedy, so to speak.
Don't see how the hunger strike or Mos Def's stunt force any of us to comtemplate it. I'd think the only people actually forced to comtemplate it would be the people who have to force-feed the hunger strikers--and those folks probably have plenty else in their daily lives that forces them to comtemplate it.
Quote from: dps on July 09, 2013, 05:37:33 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 04:08:10 PM
Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 03:35:36 PMAgain the question is not why do they use an effective tactic. The question is why is this tactic effective in general.
I think several people in this thread have admirably addressed that question - it's an appeal to our common humanity and our distaste for suffering; it's a severe step which causes people to wonder what could be happening which is so bad that it requires a hunger strike as a last ditch effort to try and resolve it; it forces us, through its severity and nonviolence, to examine whether or not this enterprise being carried out in the name of justice is in fact just.
But the thing is, we're not unaware of their situation. And for the most part, we've already decided how we feel about it. We can look at it essentially 1 of 3 ways--either their incarceration is just; it's completely unjust; or it's necessary even if it's not exactly just according to our standards of justice. Yes, there are more nuanced positions possible, but that's the jist of it. I think views of most Americans probably come down more or less to the 3rd option. But since we've already come to whichever view we hold, why should their dedication to their cause cause us to change our opinion?
I doubt most Americans have a firm viewpoint on what's happening there.
Quote from: dps on July 09, 2013, 05:37:33 PM
But the thing is, we're not unaware of their situation. And for the most part, we've already decided how we feel about it.
Even assuming you're correct, what I would say is that this is their last-gasp effort to try and get
enough of us to change our minds about it.
Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:16:35 PM
What I still have yet to hear though is some suggestion from anyone about what the US (in general, or their jailers in particular) ought to do other than force feeding them. No question that force feeding someone is pretty horrible, but it is most certainly neither inhumane or torture.
I'm not sure they *have* another option, considering that the notion of "don't hold them if you can't prove their guilt and aren't going to try them" appears to be off the table.
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 04:08:10 PM
I think several people in this thread have admirably addressed that question - it's an appeal to our common humanity and our distaste for suffering; it's a severe step which causes people to wonder what could be happening which is so bad that it requires a hunger strike as a last ditch effort to try and resolve it; it forces us, through its severity and nonviolence, to examine whether or not this enterprise being carried out in the name of justice is in fact just.
I'm trying to catch up with this thread, but all I'm getting is that people have sorta forgotten about the concept of nonviolent civil disobedience. Figured that was covered in junior high Civics or something, I dunno.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2013, 09:34:37 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 04:08:10 PM
I think several people in this thread have admirably addressed that question - it's an appeal to our common humanity and our distaste for suffering; it's a severe step which causes people to wonder what could be happening which is so bad that it requires a hunger strike as a last ditch effort to try and resolve it; it forces us, through its severity and nonviolence, to examine whether or not this enterprise being carried out in the name of justice is in fact just.
I'm trying to catch up with this thread, but all I'm getting is that people have sorta forgotten about the concept of nonviolent civil disobedience. Figured that was covered in junior high Civics or something, I dunno.
Sometimes I feel like half this country has Asperger's.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2013, 09:34:37 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 04:08:10 PM
I think several people in this thread have admirably addressed that question - it's an appeal to our common humanity and our distaste for suffering; it's a severe step which causes people to wonder what could be happening which is so bad that it requires a hunger strike as a last ditch effort to try and resolve it; it forces us, through its severity and nonviolence, to examine whether or not this enterprise being carried out in the name of justice is in fact just.
I'm trying to catch up with this thread, but all I'm getting is that people have sorta forgotten about the concept of nonviolent civil disobedience. Figured that was covered in junior high Civics or something, I dunno.
:yawn:
So derspiess isn't naming his next kid Mohandas King Gandhi, Jr. No shit.
I was thinking a good Swahili name for the next one.
Pfft, go truly and uniquely Americana, man. Derkiddie X.
Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 04:33:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2013, 04:21:11 PM
I am not sure what you inquiry has to do with what is being discussed here. Which is the apparant lack of understanding by Max and Spicey as to why they are going on a hunger strike - despite Max's protestations to the contrary.
That's not it at all. We know why they do it-- because it works. The question is, why does it work?
It works at...what? There have been hunger strikes at Guatanamo before and they haven't really done much. It isn't like it's a sure fire way to get their freedom or better conditions or anything. They need more than just sympathy to get out of there, and I think that's about the extent of what they are getting with the hunger strike.
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 09:37:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2013, 09:34:37 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 09, 2013, 04:08:10 PM
I think several people in this thread have admirably addressed that question - it's an appeal to our common humanity and our distaste for suffering; it's a severe step which causes people to wonder what could be happening which is so bad that it requires a hunger strike as a last ditch effort to try and resolve it; it forces us, through its severity and nonviolence, to examine whether or not this enterprise being carried out in the name of justice is in fact just.
I'm trying to catch up with this thread, but all I'm getting is that people have sorta forgotten about the concept of nonviolent civil disobedience. Figured that was covered in junior high Civics or something, I dunno.
Sometimes I feel like half this country has Asperger's.
That's now just part of the spectrum.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2013, 10:00:08 PM
Pfft, go truly and uniquely Americana, man. Derkiddie X.
Charles John Brown Wysocki DerSpeiss, Esq.
Quote from: frunk on July 09, 2013, 10:00:21 PM
It works at...what? There have been hunger strikes at Guatanamo before and they haven't really done much. It isn't like it's a sure fire way to get their freedom or better conditions or anything. They need more than just sympathy to get out of there, and I think that's about the extent of what they are getting with the hunger strike.
I meant it works in general.
Speaking of hunger strikes:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/09/19383812-almost-30000-california-inmates-in-second-day-of-hunger-strike?lite
QuoteAlmost 30,000 California prisoners were in the second day of a hunger strike Tuesday protesting prison conditions and indefinite solitary confinement, far more than took part in a similar strike two years ago, state officials said.
Relatives of some of the inmates, who comprise almost a quarter of the state's 120,000 prisoners, said in a video posted on a website supporting the strike that they are out of options to end indefinite solitary confinement for inmates with ties to prison gangs, which they call state-sanctioned torture.
"The last time I was able to touch my brother was 1982," Marie Levin, who says her brother has been in solitary confinement for 29 years, says in the video, which was posted by Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity, a coalition of prisoners rights activist groups:
"There's a core group of us who are committed to taking this all the way to the death, if necessary," Todd Ashker, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, says in the video. "None of us want to do this, but we feel like we have no other option."
So far, there have been no reports of violence.
The protests began in 2011 at maximum-security Pelican Bay and have resumed intermittently during contentious periods of negotiation with prison system officials. The latest strike — which would be the largest in state history — began Monday morning.
The coalition said it was organizing a protest at César Chavez Park in Corcoran, south of Fresno, on Saturday. Representatives of one of the groups, Critical Resistance, met Tuesday with attorneys at Pelican Bay.
The state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said it doesn't recognize hunger strikes until inmates have missed nine straight meals. Through Tuesday afternoon, the strikers had skipped five.
"There are numerous constructive positive ways to bring their concerns forth," Terry Thornton, a spokeswoman for the department, told NBC station KIEM of Eureka.
"But engaging in a mass hunger strike — coercing other inmates maybe to do that, too — you know, the disruption it can cause from a work stoppage, the department does not condone that."
I can see both sides of the argument. Obviously permanent solitary confinement is an utterly inhumane level of punishment. On the other hand, gangs are a real threat to law and order in prisons, and letting them operate freely will just impose inhumane level of punishment on the prisoners targeted by the gangs for whatever reason.