Is force feeding always illegal ?

We have a short Note on this issue in the new edition of International Criminal Law casebook by Paust, Bassiouni.

There should at least be provision of medical treatment for detainees who make the choice to die so that their death does not involve needless suffering.

If the US chooses to intervene in such a decision, the US should not engage in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment because such are absolutely unlawful under the laws of war, human rights law, and the CAT. But the critical criterion with respect to “torture” seems to be the non-self-applicative word “severe.” It appears that one criterion accepted by international tribunals regarding cruel or inhuman treatment is the non-self-applicative word “serious.” Of course, one wants to look at the trends in decision for guidance with respect to particular tactics or treatment.

If they want to starve themselves to death, they should be allowed to do so. Is this not a Human Right that should never be abridged ? As the anti-gun and "pro-life crowds make clear, government is supposed to force people that don't want to live to do so and it is supposed to deny them the means of killing themselves. So, the one thing these guys can do is refuse to eat. And what is the response? To torture them with forced eeding via nasal tube. Water boarding would have probably been less traumatic.

Margaret Thatcher

Thatcher was that rare politician whose persona and influence crossed national borders. Such as her belief in "ordered liberty" was a root principle argued in the Cold War conflict, and her faith in the "vigorous virtues" provided the most fitting materiel to prosecute that clash.

I seem to remember a left wing 'oh so clever' poster, based on Gone with the Wind, which denigrated Reagan and Thatcher for standing up to the USSR over missile bases and disarmament. Clever but typically wrong headed. Instead of instigating WW3 we won the cold war, broke down the Berlin Wall, the iron curtain, destroyed communism and liberated the whole of eastern Europe, and various Soviet republics, all without firing a shot.

She did this with the support of the Conservative party and opposed by the socialists and the wet liberals.
And to think there are some who say her funeral is not worth the money.

Whatever the domestic squabbles, there are many millions of people who appreciate her role in their current liberty. Almost a decade ago at another funeral, across the Atlantic, she spoke appreciatively of "the great liberator" being mourned, who'd helped bring on those peoples' liberty. Today, one can eulogize Thatcher with those same words.

A bit of Korean History by LegalCerebral Reporter

 

America invaded the Koreans in 1888 and they killed 1000′s consequently the Americans had to retreat due to increasing resistance from the Korean military. That was 1888. Of course, the main stream media and history books have conveniently deleted these facts. Korea was divided preciously due to American interference. Every Korean opposed the idea of division, so Americans started the civil war with the Russians and the classic democracy vs communism charade to conquer a land. American troops killed 30% of the Korean population during the Korean War. During WW2 the level of loss suffered by UK was 0.86 % and Germany 1% of the population. North Korea was the place for resistance from the American invasion of Korea. The Americans bombed every place out in North Korea. You never heard about the massacre in Jeju Island, where the people protesting against the occupation of American troops in Korea, were butchered by the 1000s. Based on their past experiences North Korea has every reason to be prepared for future, they are arming themselves to the teeth for another invasion. 

Picture from http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2013/03/08/cartoons-of-the-day-dennis-rodman-in-north-korea/35102/4/