Do No Evil – The U.S. government has injected hundreds of foreigners it has deported with dangerous psychotropic drugs against their will to keep them sedated during the trip back to their home country, according to medical records, internal documents and interviews with people who have been drugged.
What have we become?
Walden I agree with your sentiment, if the claims in the article if they're true. However, the Washington Compost isn't known for objective or fair reporting. They've had problems with fictional stories or more accurately, creative writing. I'd really like to see all of the evidence, be it reports, records and the like. They claim they're flying prisoners, being deported with medical escorts. There has to be more to this story we're not seeing. If not, if there's not good reason to waste our more taxpayer money and risk the prisoner's lives with this stuff, then I'm with you all the way. But I'd like to see more information.
BB,
Do you have proof of your allegations?
"What have we become?"
A nation of idiots who believes anything that the liberal media feeds them?
NSD-
I had to read your comment about five times and then I went back and read the story again. What do you dispute? Are you saying that the government isn't administering drugs? After reading the story again I think that you are barking up the wrong tree. The evidence seems pretty compelling.
"according to medical records, internal documents and interviews with people who have been drugged..."
"medical note..."
"according to an airline crew member's written account
nurse's account in his deportation file..."
"The few times officials have spoken of the practice, they have understated it, portraying sedation as rare and "an act of last resort."
"Hundreds of logs for the past five years, obtained by The Post..."
"Internal government records show..."
"they internally circulated a new policy..."
"The log says..."
What were the drugs?
The drugs given in various combinations, their dosages, and information about the drugs and their effects, are listed in a sidebar on page 2 of the article, along with the numbers of detainees receiving specified ranges of dosages. I'd have copied and pasted, but it's way too long.
WTF, NoSpine?
You could have negged the comment where I called you NoSpine (thanks for that one, Goppy, I like it), but you negged my purely factual answer to tanglang's question--an answer that contained no rudeness, insults or sarcasm.
If the lack of insults was your problem with that, I have plenty for you.
Or maybe you just don't like facts about pharmaceuticals? Or don't like to read?
Not a member? Sign-up today!
kitkatgirl
adrielh791966
sterlingburt19681962
LeftTurn
fyuuuuut
MacBookForMe
dokkyou08
philforhumanity
anjamerret
maneetion
slashup67
HoneyBear911
jorgepratt19711962
nopatacious
darwinm701977
sjoko
shawnmartinez1960
PrettyWoman911
GreenBayFan
tiktik210
KaiCampbell
elliotthicks1965
pyuuuke
popperous
bruhaha
Nowalive
702carter
alamala
Dan and Jennifer
baldieadelphe
lawrencee
woggman
helloworldbea
alllo
newsarefree
dissent
maxixam
untmarkb
drpolyphemus
digitalfever
decibelintent
290)
Yep, we should just put them in handcuffs.
As Pogo once said, "We have seen the enemy, and he is us."
We have become what we once loathed. Why did we allow this?
Gee, Ghost, if you know Pogo, you know why:
"We gotta make Democracy safe for the world."
Science makes possible that which previously was not possible - like killing a baby before it's officially born without significantly damaging the mother instead of killing the same baby after it's born and completely separated from the other. It didn't used to be that way, but now it is. The question is what to do or refrain from doing with what is now possible. Since left-wing types see no ethical problem with premature infanticide when it's financially or socially convenient, I fail to see any credibility in objections of drugs being used to subdue prisoners when they come from such people. If you want the good-old humane treatments used, first start objecting to the use of modern technology to get away with monstrosities not possible in the bad-old days. As for prisoners in Gitmo, have a hearing to classify them as not-covered by the Geneva Conventions (easy to do with terrorists) and do whatever is beneficial for us to them until they're dead - there are limits, you know.
This is not a matter of technology or science; this is a matter of legality.
i think about personal human right
These pieces of $hit are not human and have no rights.
TAKE NO PRISIONERS
I've had to fly from Mexico as an officer in charge of a prisoner. He was facing capitol charges and gave the MP's problems. In the end we did have to sedate him against his will. He's serving several life term at Leavenworth. Sometimes sedation may be the only option for some people. I disagree if there's no reason but if the person is being deported against his or her will and might be a danger, then it's safer to do that.
I'm kind of questioning the reporting. They claims it was given to many people with no history of violence. To fly medical personal, security and the deportees, that's a whole lot of money. I don't fully buy this. Then again, this is a government operation so you never know.
Teagan -
Sedating is one thing administering dangerous psychotropic drugs is criminal. As were/are the detentions at Gitmo as ruled by the supreme court. Whats next? Torture maybe?
Gitmo prisoners are treated better than most other prisoners outside of the USA or for that matter prisoners in most state pens.
As to torture, I'm confused at anyone defending them. I've read their handbooks on how to treat prisoners. Torture, rape and beheading are used regularly. I think armed combatant in civilian cloths trained for terror should be treated like spies. No protection offered none expected. Jimmy Carter signed the PLO protection act from the UN giving them rights they didn't deserve.
"Gitmo prisoners are treated better than most other prisoners outside of the USA or for that matter prisoners in most state pens." Irrelevant statement my friend.
Defending them?
Get a grip on reality my friend, I am defending the rule of law. The Gitmo detainees had legal rights that were upheld by the supreme court after being violated by the Bush admin for years. That is why Bush et al were given retroactive immunity by the war powers act enacted by the republican lead 109th congress.
If they don't have rights than neither do you or I.
Why do you defend a president who has engaged in war crimes, torture for one example.
"Jimmy Carter signed the PLO protection act from the UN giving them rights they didn't deserve. Again irrelevant, deserved or undeserved the law granted them - that is reality." Are you the judge, jury and executioner?
Or is it the law enforcement brain washing taking over.
I would sure not want to be in your custody for even the most inconsequential crime.
Tegan this is just too rich to leave alone:
"Gitmo prisoners are treated better than most other prisoners outside of the USA or for that matter prisoners in most state pens. "
Were you ever at Gitmo in a official capacity?
If your statement is true it speaks poorly for law enforcement incharge of legally operating "pens" in this country, ya think?
No offense but I'll take Teagens words about how they are treated over yours. She is of course an officer in the military. (As is a brother of mine who happens to agree with he on the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo.)
tanglang no offense taken
However would they also give their word that the detainees at Abu Ghareb were treated just as decently and with dignity while at the same time viewing the pictures of the torture that we have all seen occured there?
Read this http://www.pen.org/downloads/documents/adminstr...
Pay particular attention to page A-187 which states:
ARMED FORCES INSTITUTE OF PATHOLOGY
Office of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner
1413 Research Blvd., Bldg. 102
Rockville, MD 20850
1-800-944-7912
Landstuhl Regional Medical Center
Landstuhl, Germany, APO AE 09180
DSN 486-7492
CIV 011 (49) 6371-86-7492
AUTOPSY EXAMINATION REPORT
mce,
Name: Blanked out Autopsy No.: A02-95 (Landstuhl
R.M.C. Autopsy Number)
SSAN AFIP No.: 2859183
Date of Birth: Unknown, age approx. 35 yrs. Rank: Civilian, Afghani national
Date/Time of Death: 10 Dec 2002/0200z Place of Death:
Bagram Collection
Point, Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan
DatefI'ime of Autopsy: 13 Dec 2002/1000 Place of Autopsy: Bagram Air Field Date of Report: 25 Feb 2003 Afghanistan
Circumstances of Death: Approximately 35 year old Afghan male detainee who was found unresponsive restrained in his cell in the Bagram Collection Point, and pronounced dead on arrival at the 339's CSH, Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan.
Authorization for Autopsy: The Armed Forces Medical Examiner, JAW 10 USC 1471.
Identification: Visual; Post mortem dentel examination performed; Fingerprints and DNA specimen obtained.
CAUSE OF DEATH: Blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease
MANNER OF DEATH: Homicide
FINAL AUTOPSY DIAGNOSES:
I. Blunt force injuries to bilateral lower extremities with rhabdomyolysis
a. Extensive soft tissue hemorrhage with muscle necrosis
i, Involving bilateral legs, extending from upper thighs to upper calves and bilateral inguinal regions
ii. Nearly circumferential muscle damage, from subcutis to level of periosteum of femurs
iii. Histologically, extensive muscle destruction with necrosis
MEDCOM-29
DOD 003156
A-187
The 1st key point here being: MANNER OF DEATH: Homicide
The second: Murdered while in military custody.
Believe what you will tanglang and believe what you don't.
Of course this may just be more of that looney liberal propaganda I hear tell of. I mean he could of beat himself to death, right???
I don't know. We could ask them what their thoughts on that are.
teagen,
You don't believe the story as reported? Gee, do you have proof that it's false?
The story you pose, about a murderer I assume, has some credibility, but nowhere in the article does it maintain that many of these people were accused of murder or prone to violence.
"Haldol gained notoriety in the Soviet Union, where it was often given to political dissidents imprisoned in psychiatric hospitals. "In the history of oppression, using haloperidol is kind of like detaining people in Abu Ghraib," the infamous prison in Iraq, said Nigel Rodley, who teaches international human rights law at the University of Essex in Britain and is a former United Nations special investigator on torture."
My question is, do you support Soviet methods of imprisonment and subjugation?
Didn't say I did. What I did say was that I didn't trust the article as produced. The Post has a way of creative writing similar to Dan Rather. They mix fact and fantasy a little too often. In this case, it simply doesn't make sense to spend that kind of money shipping illegals out. A nurse, security, meds, etc.
Your crap on Abu Ghraib is a joke. You should have seen the reports prior to the American invasion. Rape cells were common as was the daily executions of prisoners for crimes like criticizing their leader, his sons or anyone else.
Talking rape, they'd rape the prisoner's wife, mother or daughter prior to killing the entire family. Sometimes they had them rape their own family members. They had a room with car batteries and clamps for electrical torture. Beating the soles of the feet was another favorite.
Too bad we reported this but the Post never reported it. So Yes, I guess I don't fully trust them.
teagen,
Okay, so you need the Washington Times to believe. Sorry, but that's a terribly poor excuse.
For someone that's supposed to be educated, you seem to be "looking" for a story instead of the facts that fit your own sense of bias.
You know nothing about how ICE works. I have a source that works in ICE and those things portrayed in this article are in fact, real. So take it from me (my source really) that what's been portrayed here is very true. Even before ICE was formed in 2002, there were incidents that paralleled what's been stated here, albeit not as drastic but all too true.
You got a computer, do a fact check of those issues, from drugs to policy. Let us know what you've found out. And keep out of politics, especially ideological points of view because they tend to shade your reasoning.
Tegan-
Would you be satisfied if we raped them, their families and then kill them all in retribution for the crimes you cited?
You sure give me that impression.
Teagen: "Your crap on Abu Ghraib is a joke. You should have seen the reports prior to the American invasion."
Are you trying to convince us that the US is an notch above Saddam Hussein when it comes to detainees?
The story did seem a little too "something" for me as well, nor would I call it free reporting, probably nothing more than a semi-true propaganda piece in exploded view.
When we see the real crimes of this nation printed, and different ones printed by major papers, then we will have true free reporting in this country. It's soft crimes like these in the article that are "allowed" to be reported that keeps us busy and arguing while the gov commits more serious crimes we never hear of, because we're so busy arguing about stupid propaganda articles like these!
I don't believe there is a story printed by any major publisher unless it's approved for public consumption by the CFR and any one of it's many members. And there is always a reason for reporting garbage, to guise and hide a worse problem underlying somewhere else.
Also if they are deported and illegal, that makes them criminals, I'm sure worse things happen everyday.
left,
When you bring proof of your statement, please provide it. I'm certain that we all would like to understand and know.
My question is, to what end does the Washington Post, or for that matter, its reporters need to "propagandize" these incidents?
You are either too young or oblivious of history to have remembered the 2 reporters that eventually brought down a President by reporting the facts from which evidence was obtained to consider "high crimes and misdemeanors" for impeachment. They worked for the Washington Post.
I wonder how many reporters were fired for trying to say that today?
And where have those guys been? Can you tell them we need em' again?
How is it possible to lie to an entire nation to go to war, why is it that when soldiers die they say "another IED" when most get killed standing in a street by sniper fire, why do most people not know that soldier suicides from the Iraq war outnumber those killed in action, why so many thousands are suffering from mental and severe disabilities their weak government has abandon to rot, how can we let corporations run our country, why does reality differ from the news, how can our government lie through their rotting teeth and get away with it time and time again?
You own the media that how, not all, but enough, then you can control the general opinion of the public, and essentially back the presidents agenda. That's what the CFR was created for and what it continues today. Half the major News anchors are CFR menbers.
left,
Okay. News anchors and newspaper reporters are two very different jobs. The Council on Foreign Affairs is something that conspiracy theorists - both left and right - have been using as a straw dog to instill fear. And the only news anchor I saw in their director's list is Tom Brokaw.
By its very nature the CFR is open to all sorts of influential individuals from government, academia, and industry. If you're implying that this story is part and parcel of some nefarious cabal, it won't play.
I know that there are many soldiers committing suicide, but the claim you make - more suicides than KIA's - needs a link to show the "facts".
Please be more specific and concise.
I do apologize, I meant to say more along the lines that suicides are the highest rate ever, but my rant got in the way, my bad.
More over though, my point is simply this, how can an administration lie to us blind faced to go to war and get away with it essentially, then fire every because they have help, there's no question about it. Is everyone in on the "big conspiracy"? No, it doesn't work like that at all, in fact, I believe there are allot of tight lipped reporters wondering if they made the right choices in their careers, if they truly did their job for the American people and reported what we really need to know. Maybe all tried to do the right things, but if it doesn't get past the Chief Editor, it never gets printed.
And just how certain are you that Editor In Chief's aren't strewn about the country in enough major publications pushing the presidents sentiments? Maybe about as certain as I am that there are, and we are were we should be, asking questions