Guantánamo hunger strikers subject to harsh new method of force feeding

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Guardian

Guantánamo hunger strikers subject to harsh new method of force feeding

Lawyers for inmates say humiliating body searches instituted for prisoners who wish to talk to their representatives

Matt Williams in New York
guardian.co.uk, Monday 13 May 2013 15.18 EDT

Hunger-strikers being force fed at Guantánamo Bay are shackled to a chair, fitted with a mask and have tubes inserted through their nose and into their stomachs for up to two hours at a time, according to revised guidelines in use at the camp.

The guidelines, which were updated after the latest protest by inmates began in February, detail the process of involuntary feeding and how after the sessions, detainees are kept in a "dry cell" to prevent them vomiting. News of the 30-page Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) manual – which was first published on Monday, by al-Jazeera, and has since been confirmed to be genuine by the US military – comes amid fresh questions over the ethics of force-feeding protesters at the prison.

It comes as consortium of human rights activists, pressure groups and law bodies issued a direct plea to US defense secretary Chuck Hagel to end the practice of force feeding at Guantanamo Bay.

Signed by 20 organisations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, the Center for Constitutional Rights and NYU School of Law's Global Justice Clinic, the letter to Hagel says the force-feeding of competent prisoners constitutes "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment".


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/13/guantanamo-bay-hunger-strike-forced-feeding

[DeSwiss]

1. K&R

Force-feeding violates international law

[oldandhappy]

2. This is awful.

[The Stranger]

3. We should vow that, one day, no matter how many years or decades hence,

that anyone and everyone involved with Guantanamo Bay be brought to justice.

[sikofit3]

13. Amen

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Pres Obama on start of 2nd term: 'You start thinking about history and a longer sweep of time"

Mr. President, you are going to need a much bigger sweep of time to dispel the continuing torture at Gitmo.

[DeSwiss]

18. He is the Commander-in-Chief.....

...of all the Armed Forces. It's his decision whether to keep them there or let them go.

Any caveats to this reality are just excuses.

There are no precedents to follow because we've never done anything this sick before.

What we lack most sorely in America, indeed the world is, leadership.

And the reason we can't find it is because we keep looking for it in the wrong place.

- Because it must first be found inside ourselves......

''The ultimate weapon isn't this plague out in Vegas, or any new super H-bomb. The ultimate weapon has always existed. Every man, every woman, and every child owns it. It's the ability to say No and take the consequences.'' - Hagbard Celine, Leviathan

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. When it comes to Guantanamo, the US government IS Ariel Castro.

Mass kidnappings.

Holding people prisoner for a decade.

Subjecting them to horrorific abuses.

What's the difference, except the US government is more efficient than Mr. Castro.

[tblue]

16. The difference is total immunity.

What happened to our Constitutional Law Professor?

[sir pball]

49. What's this "total immunity" of which you speak? "Sovereign Immunity" covers it, Constitutionally!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States

In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. See Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act are not as broad waivers of sovereign immunity as they might appear, as there are a number of statutory exceptions and judicially fashioned limiting doctrines applicable to both. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction on district courts, but this statute has been held not to be a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the federal government.

I won't ever argue that it's right, but unless the Feds say you can sue them, you simply CANNOT. Same goes for most governments worldwide...they all operate with total immunity. "It's good to be King!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

[OnyxCollie]

6. K&R. nt

[blackspade]

7. WTF is wrong with this administration?

This is disgusting.
They might as well put these poor folks into an induced coma for the rest of their lives.
Keeping innocent people locked up, hell, keeping criminals locked up with no hope of a trial is torture.
I want to know who wrote these guidelines so they can be prosecuted for war crimes.

[tblue]

17. I know.

I want to cry. We REALLY have to do whatever we can to change this. If those of us who care do nothing, then there is no one anywhere standing up for what's right.

I really can't stomach this administration anymore. No pun intended. I just can't stand one more enormous disappointment.

[Kelvin Mace]

8. Torture is now legal in the U.S.

we just don't call it torture.

We are now on the same path as every other totalitarian regime.

[enlightenment]

9. Kept in this chair until

the food digests.





Shameful, shameful.

[blackspade]

22. Either this torture chair was fabricated on site....

Or the manufacturer of these chairs should be boycotted.

[Sirveri]

29. It's a combination of a standard prison restraining chair and an ambulance neck brace.

If you watch shows about what goes on in jails you can see them placing the more 'unruly' guests in chairs that look exactly like that, except without the neck brace.

[sir pball]

50. I'd imagine it's what they use for unresponsive critical anorexics..

I've heard some pretty rough stuff about how they save them. Not that this is in any way morally equivalent - just functionally.

[Pterodactyl]

10. Can Nobel prizes be rescinded?

[Kali]

11. shameful

[rug]

12. There is no rationale to defend this.

[Solly Mack]

14. K&R

[cstanleytech]

15. Question. Should the government then just let them commit suicide by starving themselves?

And please, no responses of "No they should let them go" because thats a dodging the question.

Also before you even ask no I dont like that they are force feeding them nor that congress continues to refuse to allow them to be transfered into a legit court system for their cases to be heard as they should be.

[Demit]

19. If that's their wish, yes.

They're living in a hell not of their own making. I imagine their situation is driving them slowly insane. I wonder what you would feel like if the government imprisoned you for years on end, then told you you were innocent, then told you that despite that fact it was never going to let you go. You might be a little less concerned about what that government's rights or moral duties were, and more concerned with your own right over what you do with your own body.

[Ash_F]

20. No, they should let them go.

You can't start your argument from false premise.

"I'm about to commit this crime against you, how do you want it?"

[blackspade]

21. Yes.

And this is not on Congress anymore.
The Administration owns this now.

[cstanleytech]

28. Really? Could you quote the relevant law that now allows the president

to ignore congress?

[blackspade]

32. Really? Is he the commander in chief??

Then he is responsible for the goings on at GITMO. Not Congress.

[cstanleytech]

33. Either you arent a US Citizen or if you are you failed a couple of classes in school.

While it is true that he is the commander in times of war he does have limitations one of which is in the area of funding as congress has to approve funds for the military not the president but congress. Furthermore if congress states the president cannot spend the funding provided for something like transferring the prisoners in gitmo to criminal courts in the US then his hands are legally tied unless of course SCOTUS steps in and rules the action of congress as unconstitutional which I dont think they will do for a number of reasons.
So, tell me what do you believe the president can do thats legal to fix the situation keeping in mind all of the above we just discussed?

[blackspade]

43. Wow.

Either you arent a US Citizen or if you are you failed a couple of classes in school.

That is your response? An insult? Conversation fail.

As the Commander in Chief he has the authority to change the conditions and treatment of the detainees.
You keep throwing Congress into the mix in a way that doesn't apply.
The administration either needs to try or release these guys. Anything less is a violation of the Constitution.

[cstanleytech]

44. The fail is on you because congress does play a part.

They are the ones that decide how the funds are spent and that includes what can and cannot be paid for regarding the prisoners in gitmo and its called the power of the purse for a reason.

[blackspade]

46. Yawn....

So, your saying Congress is preventing Obama from giving the prisoners humane treatment?

If so, please quote the relevant law.

[cstanleytech]

47. So, by humane you mean he just should be letting them starve to death? nt

[The Stranger]

23. False dichotomy.

They should have received due process a decade ago.

Now any right to hold them has been forfeited.

Now the people who should be held (still, with due process) are those who operated Guantanamo Bay.

Every single one of them.

[happyslug]

24. Remember these are NOT convicted felons NOR Prisoners of War

These people are being held as "Unlawful Combatants" a term invented under George W. Bush to classify people they wanted to jail, but not give them the rights of POWs OR Felons (Felons have rights, the main right is that they get a trial).

These prisoners are now trying to force the US Government to either release them OR give them a trial. At Trial they can confront the evidence that keeps them in prison (The problem is the case of most of the prisoners there is NO evidence to confront, and thus at a trial all charges would be dismissed and they would be released, something this administration do not want).

Furthermore the Courts of the US have refused to intervene, when forced to make a ruling the courts have ruled holding the prisoners is illegal, but then refused to order they release, deferring to the President. Now the President has to do SOMETHING or he will have mass deaths on his hands. One or tow deaths he could ignore, but mass deaths, given the situation in the Middle East would be a disaster for US foreign policy.

Release them OR try them, either would satisfy these prisoners, ten years in jail without a trial is uncalled for, yet that is what these prisoners have endured.

[cstanleytech]

27. Hey I agree they should be tried or released, congress is the one that doesnt. nt

[temmer]

37. I agree too

nt

[hrmjustin]

38. Welcome to DU my friend!

[Auntie Bush]

39. It's the Rethugs fault...they're the ones who won't fund their release. Airline tickets cost money.

[cstanleytech]

40. Actually it is their fault but I think its mainly that they are using the people held there

as the big bad boogie man to sow fear and terror in order to manipulate the republican base.

[LanternWaste]

25. You then believe there are two and only two options available?

Your premise seems to indicate you believe there are two and only two options available-- starvation or forced feeding? You then believe there are two and only two options available?

[cstanleytech]

26. More like I am wondering if anyone here has any other viable solutions keeping in mind things like

the current political situation with our nation being held virtual hostage to the whim of the republicans in congress as well as the reality that the president cannot just order x solution done at a whim, so if you or others have real solutions and not fantasy land ones by all means offer them up as I would be interested to hear them.

[riderinthestorm]

45. Let them die with dignity, like Terry Schiavo. Many of them have already been "released"

but don't have a place to go so they are in a virtual no-man's land. Hopeless.

Yes, Obama will have the stigma attached to his record forever. As he should. The situation at Guantanamo should have been resolved asap after he was elected the FIRST time.

Just like Sands forever tarred Margaret Thatcher, so should Guantanamo detainees dying forever tar Obama.

The situation is untenable. The torture NOW proceeding with the force feeding is horrific.

[lovuian]

30. absolutely horrible Close Gitmo

the US is not winning this war

[cstanleytech]

34. Obama agrees with you

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/30/obama-gitmo_n_3185718.html

The majority party in charge of congress though doesnt.

[Comrade Grumpy]

36. Except that he doesn't do anything about it.

If Congress won't pay to keep them in the US, let 'em go.

[cstanleytech]

41. Question is though is it

within his power as president to ignore congress and us federal funds to have them released?

[Auntie Bush]

42. Again, Rethugs won't fund a transfer to a state prison...or anywhere else.

They won't allow funds for a trial and they don't give a crap whether they are guilty or innocent.

Why can't a military transport plane take them to a central European location...Then their country of origin can pick them up and take them home at their own expense. We should be able to afford to do that. Hell...If we had to... take up a collection. We NEED to get these men out of our country alive.

[woo me with science]

31. K&R

[libodem]

35. .

[alp227]

48. Al Jazeera first published the full document

http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights/2013/05/201358152317954140.html

[AnotherMcIntosh]

51. Where is the honor of the we-were-just-following-orders guards?

Are they so cowardly that they would follow the orders of their "superiors" for this shameful treatment?

[riverwalker]

52. these "Doctors" should lose their credentials

and NEVER be allowed to practice medicine again. We need to start a petition to the AMA to strip these sadists of their medical liscenses.