PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: hyper on November 01, 2005, 10:27:07 PM
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101987.html
Lawyers believe Dossari, who has been in solitary confinement for nearly two years, timed his suicide attempt so that someone other than his guards would witness it, a cry for help meant to reach beyond the base\'s walls.
Two dozen Guantanamo Bay detainees are currently being force-fed in response to a lengthy hunger strike, and the detainees\' lawyers estimate there are dozens more who have not eaten since August. Military officials say there are 27 hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay, all of whom are clinically stable, closely monitored by medical personnel and receiving proper nutrition.
The hunger strikers are protesting their lengthy confinements in the island prison, where some have been kept for nearly four years and most have never been charged with a crime. The most recent hunger strike came after detention officials allegedly failed to honor promises made during a previous hunger strike.
I am concerned.
Three U.N. experts said yesterday that they would not accept a U.S. government invitation to tour Guantanamo unless they are granted private access to detainees, a concession the U.S. has not been willing to make, citing the ongoing war on terror and security concerns. Last week, the United States invited the U.N. representatives on torture and arbitrary detention to the facility, and the experts said yesterday that they hope to visit in early December. But they described their demand for access to the detainees as "non-negotiable."
"They said they have nothing to hide," Manfred Nowak, U.N. special rapporteur on torture, said yesterday at a news conference in New York. "If they have nothing to hide, why should we not be able to talk to detainees in private?"
This sounds a tad hypocritical after the US\'s vehement demand for complete access to the nuclear facilities in North Korea.
-
:rofl: at "hunger strikes"
-
Are these inmates even human?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Are these inmates even human?
I think so Giga. They do still breathe and feel pain and anguish. Actually, I don\'t thinke they ever stopped being human.
So, I don\'t understand your questions? Are you saying that the perception that these people are ruthless killers has dehumanized them? If so, every person that kills is not human then. Therefore, are our troops, government and supporters of "legal killing" not humans?
Just a thought.
-
So moonbat, according to you our troops and government are ruthless murderers? Our troops behead people and strap bombs to themselves with the intent of killing innocent women and children?
Yeah I bet you "tear" the Christian conservatives at your school apart. :rolleyes: Also please refrain from using the word "think" in any of your posts as we all know you are incapable of doing so.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Are these inmates even human?
the ONLY thing that\'s troubling about this whole scenario is that there is the possibility that some of these people are indeed innocent and i would only be concerned of those that are...but the one\'s that are truly our enemy, sheeit,.. let them starve..or give\'em pork chops.....
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Also please refrain from using the word "think" in any of your posts as we all know you are incapable of doing so.
:lmao:
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
So moonbat, according to you our troops and government are ruthless murderers? Our troops behead people and strap bombs to themselves with the intent of killing innocent women and children?
Yeah I bet you "tear" the Christian conservatives at your school apart. :rolleyes: Also please refrain from using the word "think" in any of your posts as we all know you are incapable of doing so.
According to your logic, these people are not humans because of their actions. It is irresponsible you to categorize these people and dehumanize them solely based their actions or in most cases what you THINK their actions could possibly be. They are still humans and if we claim to uphold the value of human life as high as we say we do, then the respect for human dignity should stretch across all borders and not be ignorant to not include those that are considered the enemy.
Any kind of loss of life by the hands of another is murder and it is irrelevant on which side it is on. We might thinkwe are fighting the good war and they think likewise about their goals. You crossed the line when you targeted human dignity and the respect for human life. You\'re right, they have no respect for human life, but as morally charged individuals, we must accept their humanity regardless of their actions. Otherwise, we are not any better than they are.
And the last part of your post...I do.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
According to your logic, these people are not humans because of their actions. It is irresponsible you to categorize these people and dehumanize them solely based their actions or in most cases what you THINK their actions could possibly be.
Categorize them as terrorists who took up arms against our country? Yes that is really irresponsible. :rolleyes: Like I said don\'t hurt yourself trying to think.
Originally posted by SirMystiq
They are still humans and if we claim to uphold the value of human life as high as we say we do, then the respect for human dignity should stretch across all borders and not be ignorant to not include those that are considered the enemy.
Would they afford you the same "dignity"? Hugs and kisses won\'t appease Islamic fundamentalists.
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Any kind of loss of life by the hands of another is murder and it is irrelevant on which side it is on. We might thinkwe are fighting the good war and they think likewise about their goals. You crossed the line when you targeted human dignity and the respect for human life. You\'re right, they have no respect for human life, but as morally charged individuals, we must accept their humanity regardless of their actions. Otherwise, we are not any better than they are.
Is it not obvious that appeasement and talk will not sway them from their goal of an Islamic world? You claim you can think critically about things - I don\'t see it. They have one objective and that is the destruction of the west and a theocracy where everyone on the planet carries a Koran.
This is a war against Islamic Fundamentalism and with war comes death. I am sorry your professors can\'t grasp that concept and teach you that utopia does not exist and never will.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
According to your logic, these people are not humans because of their actions. It is irresponsible you to categorize these people and dehumanize them solely based their actions or in most cases what you THINK their actions could possibly be. They are still humans and if we claim to uphold the value of human life as high as we say we do, then the respect for human dignity should stretch across all borders and not be ignorant to not include those that are considered the enemy.
Any kind of loss of life by the hands of another is murder and it is irrelevant on which side it is on. We might thinkwe are fighting the good war and they think likewise about their goals. You crossed the line when you targeted human dignity and the respect for human life. You\'re right, they have no respect for human life, but as morally charged individuals, we must accept their humanity regardless of their actions. Otherwise, we are not any better than they are.
And the last part of your post...I do.
aw hell mystiq,...i gotta agree... everything you stated is true even tho they are killers, we still have to show that we are above and beyond what they are...but still and let\'s be honest here...i was and still is against the war in iraq....but you can\'t deny that some of these people want violence no matter what the outcome...and it\'s clear that these people don\'t care about the iraq people themselves since they have been blowin up these so called "mosques" (spel) that innocent iraqi civilians have been prayin\' to....:rolleyes:
like i stated before i was and still is against the war, but these people that are doin this s**t in iraq now? are not fighting for what they believe in,...they are just bein assholes...i mean really...what\'s done is done...if they really cared they would just let the iraqi people rebulid iraq and move forward with their lives...
-
I understand giving them some type of human treatment but if they are going to starve themselve they can have at it, I don\'t think we are responsible for there well being except to feed and make sure they don\'t escape, remember 99% of these people are there for a very good reason.
And why is ok Mystiq for these people to blow us up, but when we put a boot to there head or hit them or torture them its not ok? Are you really that naive? And most the people at SMU got there becuase there parents 1 went there or 2 money.
-
I just don\'t think that we as "normal" humans can judge others and dehumanize them on grounds of their offenses toward us. It is our moral charge to not judge but to be the better person.
I never sait it was ok.
What does my school have to do with it? I mean what you said is true but I\'m obviously not rich and the first one in my immidiate family to go to college, so what does that have to do with anything?
-
I think you\'re blowing the humanity thing a little out or proportion. It was just a small comment.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
What does my school have to do with it? I mean what you said is true but I\'m obviously not rich and the first one in my immidiate family to go to college, so what does that have to do with anything?
quotas.
-
Seriously I could care less where you go to school, you use the fact that you go to school there to some how legitimize that some how your thoughts are actually somewhat coherent because you run around all the white kids at your school. Who cares.
I have every right to judge and just because you don\'t think anyone does then oh well.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
quotas.
Nah, it was a scholarship coupled with financial aid from the school.
The comment your are talking about was posted on another thread and was is in no way meant to validate anything that I have posted so far. Liberals or Democrats for the most part win most of the arguments in that class and there is really nothing else to say. I\'m not using it to validate anything, it stayed in topic in the thread that it was posted on.
Blowing the humanity deal is important because people like Giga are validating the very things that this country and its people are supposed to opposse and get rid off. To not abide by our own standards is ignorant and will only hurt us in the long run.
-
Of course liberals and democrats win most of the arguements in your classes because the professor is liberal. Liberals tend to disregard facts when they don\'t confirm to their warped ideas.
Get off your humanity and peace crusade - it is unrealistic and ignorant to think we have some moral responsibility to captured terrorists.
-
Yea the best thing one of my business professors explained to us with Repub\'s and Dem\'s. Dem\'s will tell you a story and fantasize things, where as republicans like to give straight facts. His opinion but there\'s lots of truth to it.
It\'s easy to win a debate when you are pulling bullshit out of your mouth and all other orfaces.
-
Both conservatives and liberals are guilty of talking out of their asses. Take off your blindfolds.
-
I remember a story I read in high school. It went like this:
There was once a perfect utopia. Crime did not have a definition. People never locked their doors. No one begged. It was a spotless Eden glowing with an aura of virtue and purity. However, there was a remote house deep in the center of the town that no one approached. Indeed, the townsfolk denied its very existence. In that house was a boy. Chained and naked, he sat on his own excrement in the darkness of that windowless house. His body was covered with sores that festered as the boy slept on his own waste, sores that always bled with puss. And when someone came to slide him his food through a slit in the wall, the boy would speak only to be answered with hurried silence.
The existence of the town somehow depended on the existence of this boy. I think this story is very fitting given the current situation.
-
I understand they talk out of their asses but you gotta admit the dem\'s do it quite a bit more.
-
Originally posted by hyper
Both conservatives and liberals are guilty of talking out of their asses. Take off your blindfolds.
exactly...
-
Originally posted by hyper
Both conservatives and liberals are guilty of talking out of their asses. Take off your blindfolds.
You mean like Clinton did YESTERDAY at Rosa Parks funeral?
President Clinton, while addressing the attendees at Rosa Parks\' funeral yesterday, told of a time when he was 9 years old and learned of Rosa Parks\' infamous denial to sit on the back of the bus.
He stated that he was so moved by that, that he went and sat in the back of his school bus with the black children. (This was apparently supposed to be a show of alliance on his part).
But what is also apparent - is that it\'s not true!
In an article on Sep. 24, 1997 in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette it was noted that when he was 11 years old at the time of the famous integration of Little Rock\'s Central High School, President Clinton had attended SEGREGATED schools.
How could a child who attended segregated schools have ever been on a SCHOOL bus with black children?
http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/central/wtranscript25.html
-
:laughing: How bitter you are. Here\'s a sensible Tom Delay quote to cheer up your day.
"Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills." –Tom DeLay, on causes of the Columbine High School massacre, 1999
-
I couldn\'t care less what Tom Delay says. He is wrong on many issues. Funny you can\'t admit Clinton is a habitual liar. The media and the libs eat up every word he says.
The Democrats thrive on lies. Not that the Republicans don\'t have their fair share of bold face liars as well - it is just the manner they do it. WJC - the first "black" President... :rolleyes:
-
Oh? And why do you assume that I care about what Clinton says? Clinton is a habitual liar, just like any other politician. He is no hero to me, just as Tom DeLay is no hero to you.
Both parties thrive on lies, especially when they are in the minority. Again, take off your blindfolds.
Funny how you automatically label me a liberal and believe all liberals are flat out wrong. Perhaps it would do you good to stop envisioning the world as so black and white.
-
Here is the problem Hyper. Liberals don\'t practice what they preach. Ted Kennedy for instance wants to raise taxes on the rich, yet he has most of his money invested in trusts on the island of Fiji so he wouldn\'t have to pay these higher taxes! Ted Kennedy has an estimated 500 million dollars and only pays approximately 135,000 dollars in taxes - unbelievable. George Soros is another example of this as he wants to the inheritance tax in this country yet he has most of his assets protected off-shore. Al Franken is all for affirmative action yet out of 112 employees he has only 1 minority on in his employment.
The only fault I really find with certain Republicans is the ties some have to far right Christian fundamentalists. Clearly they do not practice what they preach either, but this on a whole does not effect me like what the Dems preach. Tom Delay\'s problems have no direct influence on me as a citizen, but if certain Dems had their way they would want to tax me, yet they wouldn\'t give up a dime.
Do as I say (Not as I Do) Profiles in Liberal Hypocracy is a great book.
“I don’t own a single share of stock.” —Michael Moore
Members of the liberal left exude an air of moral certitude. They pride themselves on being selflessly committed to the highest ideals and seem particularly confident of the purity of their motives and the evil nature of their opponents. To correct economic and social injustice, liberals support a whole litany of policies and principles: progressive taxes, affirmative action, greater regulation of corporations, raising the inheritance tax, strict environmental regulations, children’s rights, consumer rights, and much, much more.
But do they actually live by these beliefs? Peter Schweizer decided to investigate in depth the private lives of some prominent liberals: politicians like the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedys, and Ralph Nader; commentators like Michael Moore, Al Franken, Noam Chomsky, and Cornel West; entertainers and philanthropists like Barbra Streisand and George Soros. Using everything from real estate transactions, IRS records, court depositions, and their own public statements, he sought to examine whether they really live by the principles they so confidently advocate.
What he found was a long list of glaring contradictions. Michael Moore denounces oil and defense contractors as war profiteers. He also claims to have no stock portfolio, yet he owns shares in Halliburton, Boeing, and Honeywell and does his postproduction film work in Canada to avoid paying union wages in the United States. Noam Chomsky opposes the very concept of private property and calls the Pentagon “the worst institution in human history,” yet he and his wife have made millions of dollars in contract work for the Department of Defense and own two luxurious homes. Barbra Streisand prides herself as an environmental activist, yet she owns shares in a notorious strip-mining company. Hillary Clinton supports the right of thirteen-year-old girls to have abortions without parental consent, yet she forbade thirteen-year-old Chelsea to pierce her ears and enrolled her in a school that would not distribute condoms to minors. Nancy Pelosi received the 2002 Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farm Workers, yet she and her husband own a Napa Valley vineyard that uses nonunion labor.
Schweizer’s conclusion is simple: liberalism in the end forces its adherents to become hypocrites. They adopt one pose in public, but when it comes to what matters most in their own lives—their property, their privacy, and their children—they jettison their liberal principles and embrace conservative ones. Schweizer thus exposes the contradiction at the core of liberalism: if these ideas don’t work for the very individuals who promote them, how can they work for the rest of us?
http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385516952
Perhaps it would be good for you to see through the smoke and mirrors that the Dems put up and see them for what they really are.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Perhaps it would be good for you see through the smoke and mirrors that the Dems put up and see them for what they really are.
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogigo.co.uk%2Fimg%2Fusr%2F3365%2F076.jpg&hash=9553085a0c612b2bedd286890388c20584faead8)
-
That is the gayest pic ever.
-
Oh? And of course, the Republicans fervently stick to what they preach. They surely upheld states’ rights with Schiavo and Oregon’s Death with Dignity. I am sure Bush championed fiscal responsibility with the bridge to nowhere. No Republican who preaches about ethical purity would ever think about committing sexual harassment or stock fraud! And let’s not forget, banning abortion and supporting the death penalty at the same time makes perfect sense.
Hopefully you can find me a more objective source than a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Must I really waste my time searching for you a liberal who only looks at the faults of the Republican Party?
I have already seen through the smoke and mirrors of the Democrats. You obviously have not chosen to see the destruction that your lumbering elephant often leaves behind.
-
banning abortion and supporting the death penalty at the same time makes perfect sense.
it does make sense, one is death for extreme crimes and the other is killing an unborn child who will never have the chance to live.
-
Originally posted by cloud345
it does make sense, one is death for extreme crimes and the other is killing an unborn child who will never have the chance to live.
These are arguments made against abortion:
“It\'s hard to understand why people are even debating the issue of abortion.
It\'s very simple, really. All life is precious, from conception to natural death. To believe otherwise, is to go down a road of values that can easily justify eliminating some people based on what other people want and believe.”
"But God’s word declares that all life is precious. Not just those who we call “normal” but all life. Exodus 4:11 declares, “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” Our God is sovereign. He’s the one who creates all life and all life is precious to him. God knows what he’s doing, even if we can’t completely understand. His plans are always perfect and none of us should ever dare to presume that we know more than God by taking the life of an unborn child. "
"The Bible assures all life is precious to God. No one created in the image of God is less valued by God than anyone else. Every person, special needs or not, is precious in God’s sight. Just because society places a higher value on people without special needs doesn’t mean that God has the same perspective. When God creates a person, he creates that person to accomplish his divine purposes. Keep in mind that God’s purposes may not be the same as our purposes. All life is precious to God ."
Take from that what you will.
-
I saw a program where volunteer civilians were treated as the Guantanamo prisoners, the program was made by BBC I think.
After seeing that I\'ll laugh every time Bush talks about human rights. :)
-
The BBC :lmao:
If you believe any tripe they broadcast you need your head examined.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
The BBC :lmao:
If you believe any tripe they broadcast you need your head examined.
Oh I forget.. Socialist dung right? ;)
We already know what’s going on in Guantanamo, no matter what the BBC said. Methods used in the program were methods approved by Rumsy/Bush or witnessed by FBI agents.
Bush = speaketh of human rights = me laughing long and hard.
:rofl: :lmao: :gay:
-
If I were in Europe right now I would be more concerned about the immigration problems/Muslims there as opposed to how the US is handling its own fight against radical Islam.
I love how foreigners tell us how to handle our security and lecture us about human rights - especially when that person lives in a country that has used involuntary sterilization on its citizens in order to keep their welfare state alive. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by hyper
:laughing: How bitter you are. Here\'s a sensible Tom Delay quote to cheer up your day.
"Guns have little or nothing to do with juvenile violence. The causes of youth violence are working parents who put their kids into daycare, the teaching of evolution in the schools, and working mothers who take birth control pills." –Tom DeLay, on causes of the Columbine High School massacre, 1999
You are comparing someone\'s beliefs (Man, Delay is a nutcase) to someone who is downright lying (Clinton is a butt fucker).
-
Originally posted by videoholic
You are comparing someone\'s beliefs (Man, Delay is a nutcase) to someone who is downright lying (Clinton is a butt fucker).
No, I\'m comparing two people who talk out of their asses.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I love how foreigners tell us how to handle our security and lecture us about human rights - especially when that person lives in a country that has used involuntary sterilization on its citizens in order to keep their welfare state alive. :rolleyes:
It had nothing to do with the welfare state, and you know this from our previous debates (how many times now? 3 times? You\'re getting old Giga, bad memory. ;) ). :)
And all countries have shady pasts, some more than others.
We cant do anything to change our past, but we can do something to prevent whats going on right now. Guantanamo is one example of many.
-
Originally posted by fastson
It had nothing to do with the welfare state, and you know this from our previous debates (how many times now? 3 times? You\'re getting old Giga, bad memory. ;) ). :)
And all countries have shady pasts, some more than others.
We cant do anything to change our past, but we can do something to prevent whats going on right now. Guantanamo is one example of many.
Yes, I remember you trying to defend it, but the truth is that it was policy to keep the population balanced for the welfare state.
Anyway, at least we have lesbian cheerleaders!
http://community.webshots.com/slideshow?ID=500466249&key=FlgVSo
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Yes, I remember you trying to defend it, but the truth is that it was policy to keep the population balanced for the welfare state.
Anyway, at least we have lesbian cheerleaders!
http://community.webshots.com/slideshow?ID=500466249&key=FlgVSo
No. :)
-
Fastson stop living in denial:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Sweden+Forced+Sterilization&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8
-
Yes I know about its history. But it had little to do with a welfare state. The welfare state didn’t exist as such when this started out.
The reasons were other (much more shameful if you ask me), it reminds me more of Hitlers Germany I think.
Anyway we can only accept that it happened and move on, make sure it wont happen again.
Will you feel the same way about Guantanamo in 30 years?
-
Exactly it was undesirables who were "fixed". Why? To be less of a burden on the state.
As for Guantanamo - I couldn\'t care less about the people locked up there. Sure a few innocent ones might be there, but I am sure more are guilty of something than are not. Better them being there than running around plotting and killing. No regrets on my part on how we have done things since 9/11.
I am not ashamed about our past as a country either - what happened - as you say happened. It was a different era, but with Sweden this happened 30 years ago.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
As for Guantanamo - I couldn\'t care less about the people locked up there. Sure a few innocent ones might be there, but I am sure more are guilty of something than are not. Better them being there than running around plotting and killing.
A few innocents don\'t matter huh?
You are full of it.
Too bad you can\'t take a taste of our own medicine.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Exactly it was undesirables who were "fixed". Why? To be less of a burden on the state.
I relize now nothing I say on the matter will change your mind, because you do not want to learn. :)
I am not ashamed about our past as a country either - what happened - as you say happened. It was a different era, but with Sweden this happened 30 years ago.
The serialisations happened in an different era also (agreed upon in 1935). We don’t have people who think like that any more, not in government positions at least.
What is scary is that "some" government people now are prepared to go back almost 250 years and make torture acceptable again.
This is happening now, today in an civilised nation.
That is shameful.
-
Hmmm torturing terrorists or forcing sterilization on people with mental and physical handicaps... I swear Fastson I can\'t even believe you tried to compare the two. :rolleyes:
Mystiq - I am calling INS on your parents. Say goodbye to them now anchor baby.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Hmmm torturing terrorists or forcing sterilization on people with mental and physical handicaps... I swear Fastson I can\'t even believe you tried to compare the two. :rolleyes:
Mystiq - I am calling INS on your parents. Say goodbye to them now anchor baby.
Giga, the difference is; one hasn’t been used for over 30 years and the other is being done in multiple US controlled areas as we write.
I\'ll give you a gold star and a kiss on the cheek if you point out the one that happens right now?
As a site note: US started with forced sterilization long before us, and this continues up to the LATE 1970ies..
The history of forced sterilization in the United States is long and tragic. The first of the laws empowering the state to sterilize unwilling and unwitting people was passed in 1907 by the Indiana Legislature. The act was intended to prevent procreation of "confirmed criminals, idiots, rapists, and imbeciles" who were confined to state institutions. Other states followed with what became known as the eugenics laws. It is shocking to learn that between 1907 and 1964 more than 63,000 people were sterilized under such laws in the United States and in the colony of Puerto Rico.
By the late 1970s at least ten states had proposed compulsory sterilization of women on welfare. Similar proposals in the 1990s aim to limit welfare benefits of women who have more than the approved number of children or to mandate the use of long-acting contraceptives, such as Norplant, for poor women.
From 1907 onward, at least 60,000 Americans were sterilized against their will. The legal basis for these forced sterilizations was provided by so-called eugenics laws. Most compulsory sterilizations occurred in the 1930s and \'40s, but some states, such as Virginia, continued the practice until the late 1970s. Most of the victims were poor and members of minorities, and none of them received compensation, according to Paul Lombardo, professor of law and bioethics at the University of Virginia.
Ruh Roh..
-
:laughing: I was wondering when you\'d point that out.
-
wow...i didn\'t know that...regarding that sterilization stuff...even into the late 70\'s? that\'s kinda disturbing....
-
Where is your link Fastson? Late 1970\'s? In one state out of 50? Something tells me you aren\'t posting the whole story. I know the US as well as most countries sterilized people, but Swedens is the most notorious without a doubt for the very reason it took place in modern times. 1907??? WTF?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Where is your link Fastson? Late 1970\'s? In one state out of 50? Something tells me you aren\'t posting the whole story. I know the US as well as most countries sterilized people, but Swedens is the most notorious without a doubt for the very reason it took place in modern times. 1907??? WTF?
Google it. ;)
No really, sorry I forgot to link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7242649/site/newsweek/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/29/60minutes/main614728.shtml
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_035500_sterilizatio.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views/072100-106.htm
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=109569
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/sterilize.html
There is lots to read if you search Google.
The state of Indiana was the first US state to allow forced sterilization, they did this in 1907. A total of 35 states in 1936 allowed forced sterilization. Forced sterilization was ceased in 1978, by then it was mainly used in IHS hospitals.