51–60 of 75 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, what's your alternative? The death penalty? Release them?
Make your prisons humane, don’t force-feed anyone, and accept the condemnation that occurs when one of your prisoners decides to starve himself to death anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine that it isn't actually prior restraint in the classic sense, but instead in the form of an agreement that the lawyers and family members have to sign before talking to the prisoners in question.
Yes, I suspect that they're non-disclosure agreements. So violating them puts one in contempt of court. And punishments for contempt are whatever judges say they are.
Setting aside this specific situation. Let's say you run a prison, and an inmate goes on a "hunger strike" for a reason that's important to them. What should the prison operators do? Force feed the inmate, negotiate, give into their demands, or let them die? Let's say you try to negotiate, but the inmate is making unreasonable demands or you are not willing to meet their demands, then what?
To everyone saying to let them die, then where is the punishment? Most terrorists would rather and, in fact, intend to die during their attacks. If you let them die, not only are you giving them what they want, but then there is no deterrent to carrying out suicide missions.
Why isn't there more of a highlight on Salameh's actual charges. This is grossly glossed over especially when understanding what you have to do to land oneself in a blacksite to begin with.
yeah, tell that to the black teenagers dragged to Homan Square in Chicago
Why are western nations retreating from any semblance of the moral high ground?
It's our moral high ground that stops us from killing the terrorist or letting him starve himself to death.
It's propaganda. It's not done because we value their lives, but specifically because we don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I suspect that they're non-disclosure agreements. So violating them puts one in contempt of court. And punishments for contempt are whatever judges say they are.
See, that would make a least some sense. But apparently "The U.S. Attorney General has sole discretion to impose SAMs". With court imposed gag orders there's a court order from a judge. These things seem to be administrative decisions about detention conditions (the same way prisons can regulate the books prisoners can have, etc). But if so, they wouldn't ordinarily regulate the speech of people not actually in jail.…
However, many cases have been quashed, based on national security grounds. For criminal cases, charges against suspects have been dropped. But about SAMs, that would likely leave the status unchanged. IANAL, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yeah, tell that to the black teenagers dragged to Homan Square in Chicago
which would be exactly why I would want to know the charge's
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People should be able to control their bodies. If you don't want to eat. Nobody should force feed you.
I'm not trying to muddy the waters on this issue or take a consequentialist perspective, but how is this materially different from someone rejecting oxygen? The moral response seems to be to intervene rather than let someone commit suicide, regardless of how long it takes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make your prisons humane, don’t force-feed anyone, and accept the condemnation that occurs when one of your prisoners decides to starve himself to death anyway.
That's fair. But you aren't the one I was asking. I get the impression that that wasn't danharaj's alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fair. But you aren't the one I was asking. I get the impression that that wasn't danharaj's alternative.
I don’t see how “Makes you think, doesn't it?” would imply anything more than the comment it was in response to.