After recent visits to Guantanamo Bay have shown that the place is not full of the horror stories we were told, the AP is worried that the detainees are being fed too much fatty food.
Meals totaling a whopping 4,200 calories per day are brought to their cells — U.S. government dietary guidelines recommend 2,000 to 3,000 calories per day for weight maintenance — and some inmates are eating everything on the menu [ed.- and this is all the evil Bush Administration's fault. Fire Rummy!].
They are getting meals prepared according to strict Islamic guidelines. Meals served outside of the daytime hours because of the Ramadan daytime fasts. Traditional desserts and honey are also offered for the Muslim holiday.
Sounds like torture to me.
5 comments:
Yeah, eating a bad diet versus waterboarding. I can see why you'd compare the two. And I still say that if you don't object to waterboarding, why don't we waterboard you sometime?
Clearly I don't think this is torture. I was simply pointing out that you have people making some huge deal over this like it is torture. Sam, you have to admit this is absurd, running some story about how negatively we are treating Gitmo prisoners because they are getting too much food.
Stupid stories like this take away from a legitimate debate over the morality of real torture.
Sure it sounds nice on a bumpersticker to say, "Why don't you get waterboarded," but it means very little.
If it is used at all, it should be for only those who are known terrorists and have very valuable life saving information.
Again, I don't know what the right answer is morally. I wish I did, but making the test for what goes on to terrorists, what I would feel like happen to me is absurd. I wouldn't feel like being captured, should we let all of them go free as well? I would feel like undergoing rough questioning, is that out too?
And to me personally, if it would allow us to continue the practice (only when absolutely needed) without any condemnation from the left, I may would do it. I may pee in my pants and throw up, but at least we could move past this.
Your flippant tone again indicates how unseriously you take this issue of torture. The fact that you say torture ought to be reserved for only the guilty says enough - when are these people being found by guilty? And by whom?
You mistake me if you think I am flippant about torture. I am not. I am flippant about silly journalists equating detainees at Gitmo having too much food with torture. That is the insinuation of the article, not mine.
Sam, some people are clearly terrorists. I'm talking about high level Al-Qaeda leaders. It's like saying we have to have a trial for Osama. We know he is a terrorists and has information. Now what do we do?
That is my question. Anyone who is in question or would have no real information should not face any of the questionable issues. The debate should be over what techniques can be used against high level terrorists.
And the "pee in my pants, throw up" would probably be the case, but I was not trying to be flippant about the issue, just trying to crack a joke with you.
Post a Comment