Posted on 03/26/2005 4:23:47 PM PST by InvisibleChurch
Saturday, March 26, 2005 6:22 p.m. EST Nazis Used Starvation to Kill
Confounding all conventional wisdom and human experience, many liberal groups and even some medical experts have argued for Terri Schiavo’s death.
They claim that starvation and dehydration is not painful or discomforting for her or anyone undergoing the experience.
In fact, they allege that such victims begin to experience "euphoria” as the victims draw close to death. If such claims are true, we may have to rewrite the history of such notorious events as the Holocaust – where starvation was the key process by which millions died and were later placed in crematoriums.
The internationally-accepted Geneva Convention – which identifies starvation as a war crime – also will have to be rewritten. Ditto for many statements made by reputable organizations – many of them liberal, who have condemned the practice for decades.
Strange Bedfellows
Remember that statement about politics making strange bedfellows? Perhaps such is the case with liberal activists who want Terri to die from starvation and the Nazis who killed 13 million people.
As it turns out, starvation was the primary means of killing unwanted peoples.
Shortly after World War II, a U.S. congressional committee investigated the Nazi Holocaust and found that starvation was the main instrument of torture in the concentration camps.
The Committee notes the prisoners' daily diet "consisted generally of about one-half of a pound of black bread per day and a bowl of watery soup for noon and night, and not always that."
The report continued, "Notwithstanding the deliberate starvation program inflicted upon these prisoners by lack of adequate food, we found no evidence that the people of Germany as a whole were suffering from any lack of sufficient food or clothing. The contrast was so striking that the only conclusion which we could reach was that the starvation of the inmates of these camps was deliberate."
If we believe the New York Times, what’s so bad about the Nazi’s starvation tactic?
A Times article relating to Schiavo’s death cited several "experts” who offered the new view on starvation.
"From the data that is available, it is not a horrific thing at all," Dr. Linda Emanuel, the founder of the Education for Physicians in End-of-Life Care Project at Northwestern University, told the New York Times.
The Times also cites Dr. Sean Morrison, a professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, who insists that starvation victims "generally slip into a peaceful coma."
"It's very quiet, it's very dignified - it's very gentle," he adds.
Despite the Times’ desire to turn the truth upside down, the facts speak for themselves:
To begin with, there is the long standing and internationally accepted Geneva Convention: "The prohibition to starve civilians as a ‘method of warfare’ is included in Article 54 of Protocol I and Article 14 of Protocol II."
According to the International Criminal Court, starvation as a means of killing is a war crime. The Court noted: "Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions' is a serious violation of the laws and customs of war [52]."
The liberal human rights organization, Amnesty International, has long cited starvation as inhumane. For example, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the group claimed that "scores of civilian deaths, predominantly among children, from starvation and injuries [were] sustained during the conflict." Amnesty International stated at the time that it "condemns in the strongest terms the use of starvation as a weapon of war against civilians as a clear and serious violation of Geneva Conventions that Laos has ratified."
Amnesty International also blasted North Korea after the UN reported that some 2 million North Koreans have died from starvation, adding that in total, 50 percent of the population doesn't have enough to eat.
Work And Progress, a liberal Web site, was critical of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in 2001, and even claimed the U.S. military action there had caused up to 7.5 million Afghans to be threatened with starvation. The site went on to note: "Starvation is, quite literally, torturous. And the equation will seem just about right to many people: the atrocity that the U.S. government is willing to subject a handful of people to on U.S. soil, it is willing to subject millions to in some far off land."
In 2001, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, offered up House Resolution 102, backed by three other lawmakers, noting that during World War II, the Axis Powers – Germany, Italy and Japan – noting that many of the 18,745 American soldiers captured during the war "were subjected to barbaric prison conditions and endured torture, starvation, and disease." The treatment of American POWs "violated international human rights principles," said the resolution.
In a report by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, regarding the "Definition of the Right to Food," the commission recommended "the right to food and nutrition was a human right." The commission also advocated "the right to food in emergency situations" should "be taken into account," to "include the obligation of states to grant access to impartial humanitarian organizations to provide food aid and other humanitarian assistance."
The New York Times may well be remembered as the newspaper that was most outraged over photos of Iraqi terrorist suspects being mistreated by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison – but claimed that starvation was a benevolent way to die.
Of course, if the Times is right - and starvation causes "little discomfort" - the paper may have uncovered a valuable new tool in the war on terror.
One wonders how the Old Gray Lady would react if U.S. interrogators began to starve terrorist suspects in a bid to extract information.
Here. #30
Please, Lord, let it happen.
Did you take your ugly pills today, Mr/Ms. Personality Plus?
BTW: The wiggly stuff towards the front and sides of the head is part of her cerebral cortex. The blank area in the middle shows some of the damage. How much capacity she retains is anybody's guest.
I am a non-religious conservative so apparently I am immune from the mass self-deception that is being induced on this issue.
What I now see is that people have become emotionally attached to this issue, not because they want to save terri, but because they hate this michael and greer guy so much that they WANT terri to be concious just so they can prosecute these guys. Forget that all the evidence supports the lower court rulings, people are simply believing what they want to believe. Go - look on the internet and find the opinion of bloggers who have studied neurology and conclude that there is no point in doing and MRI because the CAT scans show so much damage.
All the other side really has is this video and experts who largely quote the video as their evidence. I've seen the video, and most distributers fail to mention it is selectively clipped from a longer *4 1/2 hour video*. Also that the behaviour seen such as laughter, blinking is typical of pvs (from what I have read)
The refusal of the higher courts to act? Good! As far as I know there have been no laws broken so there is no reason for higher courts to get involved in local issues.
but then again seeing as so many people are asking for it there is no harm doing an MRI just to humour people.
I am not a religious person either; but I know right from wrong; and this situation really stinks. You may want to review some of your "evidence" it is not as conclusive as your predisposition has made you believe.
For instance, my local conservative paper, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, today published USA Today's cover story "It's all about the money", accusing the Schindlers of harassing Michael Schiavo for a share of his insurance settlement. The entire focus of the article is negative against Terri's parents and it shows Judge Greer and Michael in an extremely positive light.
My opinion: the conservative press sees that this issue is hurting Bush, so they now need to destroy the Schindler family and make this controversy a non-issue. Another motivation is the complaint from some conservatives that Bush and Congress shouldn't get involved because it's the intrusion of big government into our lives.
We can't even get the truth from our conservative newspapers. It's a tragedy.
You are mistaken: one can breath with a fully intact brain-stem, even if the cerebral cortex is missing. (Witness the breathing unassisted during the short lives of those with the misfortune of being born anencephalous.)
(Shes brain dead...she wont ever get better, she wont ever feel emotion, she wont ever feed herself, she wont ever get up...nothing...she will just sit there, smiling with a lifeless, dead grin on her face. Is that what you want?)
How do you know what she's feeling? NOBODY really knows what she is feeling!!!!! If she was my sister, I'd rather have her to visit and have her smile at me, than what that poor woman is going through! God Bless all those fighting for Terri!
Wonder if this Judge could be tried in some world court fro murder.
Bump for emphasis to your ultimate conclusion. GOOD! GOOD! you say. GOOD! No laws broken, GOOD!
The holocaust of the Jews of Europe at the hands of the Nazis was all done in accordance with German law. The judges of the Reich upheld all of the "laws" established by the Nazi regime. This was the basis of their "vee vere only following zee laws, honorable tribunal" defense at Nuremberg.
Well, it didn't work at Nuremberg, and it won't work here. They were still found guilty of crimes against humanity. Because, you see, the laws they broke were of a higher order, the ones that say we don't murder innocent people. Those are the laws that any people who dare call themselves civilized, a cut above our barbaric and brutal ancestors, hold to be true. The tragedy of Terri Schindler, aside from that of her own impending execution at the hands of a judge of this land, is that this nation, by it's acceptance of this state-sanctioned murder and the turning of a blind eye to it by the people, is that we are going down the same bloody road. We haven't learned from history. Those who today advocate the death of Terri Schindler at the behest of another are only a few short, slippery steps down the slippery slope from the Nazi terror. The slope is indeed slippery, slippery with the blood of innocent persons like Terri Schindler.
Of the six billion people watching Florida-Greer's execution of the helpless by Starvation
three billion people are eagerly waiting for his prosecution and incarceration and justice.
I just took some of the best phrases posted above on this topic and put it in an email to Governor Bush and to President Bush, begging someone to read it and pass it along.
I don't know what else I can do besides pray and send emails. And I've sent off at least a half dozen emails.
Something I've always thought is that the USofA would lose its status and become a Third World Nation before the "end" of the World. But I never thought I'd be living when it happened.
No laws were broken in Nazi Germany during the euthanasia years.
All of those "useless feeders" were exterminated with a judge's signature on the death order.
But hey, most German doctor's agreed: they were "life unworthy of life," as they put it.
"It's the husbands decision."
I think Florida state law says when there is no directive, the patient's wishes are determined by the court, and the US Supreme Court says the standard to be used is clear and convincing evidence.
The Florida court has found the facts favor the husband's POV. The appeals courts have bakced up this decision almost unanimously in every case.
It's over. It's Michaels decision that carries the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.