home

Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo

By TChris, Section War on Terror
Posted on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 11:53:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The hunger strike at Guantanamo (last reported by TalkLeft here) continues to grow. At least 128 detainees are participating in the protest, although the actual number is probably larger.

The hunger strike began in the first week of August, and, according to newly declassified accounts of detainees provided by their lawyers, has gradually spread across several camps at the prison. Detainees allege they have been severely beaten and are deeply frustrated at their indefinite detentions. Some have been held for 3 1/2 years without facing charges.

Lawyers for the prisoners assert that more than 200 detainees are refusing food. An earlier hunger strike in June and July ended after military authorities met with a small group of detainees and promised improvements in their living conditions.

< As the GOP Turns | A Surprising Admission >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo | 30 comments (30 topical)
    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    It's too bad they didn't think about the possibility of captivity when they chose to take up the path they did in life. Neither Bush nor Halliburton turned them into murderous fanatics. Despite the best attempts of their lawyers and the media, the recent try at obtaining sympathy failed because people were able to see what these fanatics had on the dinner menu and the hoops that were jumped through so as not to offend their delicate sensibilities. This is just the next stage in the sympathy parade, with their lawyers being willing mouthpieces for murderous fanatics. If released, how much would you like to bet they would be with their brethren burning synagogues in the Gaza Strip (or worse).

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    Charley Back up you ridiculous talking points. You are nothing more than a parrot! These people are not being treated as prisoners of war they are in limbo. You just make accusations. If the Bushbag admin had any evidence they are "Terrorists" they should Charge them! Put them on trail. Until then we as a country are no better than the Pol Pot rregime and their henchmen who arrested and tortured just because.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    I guess my memory is better than yours-months ago, we were supposed to be shocked and appalled by the mistreatment of the Koran. Turns out to have been a crock. Then we were supposed to be outraged when the evil right wing had the gall to publicize the dinner menus of the poor downtrodden fanatics. the prisoner of war/Geneva argument has been made ad nauseum-they conformed to none of the requirements for it to be applicable and the logic of releasing them to kill again escapes me. As to their lawyers, it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that they informed their clients that the last sympathy ploy failed. This is just the next step. Maybe some budding Lynne Stewart even suggested the next plan of attack.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    Is that what passes for debate? war is not the equivalent of a purse snatching or dope bust. enemy combatants are not the equivalent of the local drunk driver. you don't let people go who will take up arms again while the war is ongoing. all of this is common sense-I understand why it is so difficult to comprehend. in any event, this debate has gone on and on with the left puzzled as to why folks don't want fanatics free to kill again. nothing I can say will produce any spasm of sense here.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    It's too bad they didn't think about the possibility of captivity when they chose to take up the path they did in life. Ah, Charley: just like that you prove you are too ignorant about the prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay for your comments to be worth anything. The one thing all the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have in common is that they are all male and all Muslim. Other than that, nothing. Some were kidnapped by the US from the Gambia, some from Bosnia, many from Afghanistan: some (we don't know how many) may be terrorists: some (we don't know how many) may be Taliban: some (we don't know how many) are guilty of nothing but being Muslims in the wrong place at the wrong time - that is, they cannot even be 'accused' of having taken up arms against the US, since there's no evidence that they did. We can be fairly sure that there are people in all three categories in Guantanamo Bay. None are held there legally, and only four have ever been charged. Your presumption that just because they're in Guantanamo Bay they must be guilty of something is, at best, mere ignorance. At worst, it's prejudicial malice. I hope it's mere ignorance: you can work to correct that.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    Charley, Come on, my fellow free American, answer Jesurgislac's rebuttal. Or are you sooooo trusting of the Bush administration that you can provide us anything resembling proof that even a minority of gitmo prisoners are half a terrorist or more? We're waiting, my friend. It takes A LOT OF BLIND FAITH to trust that Gitmo is anything but a disgrace. With what we know about people sold to Americans, bought by Americans, the tribal grudges that lead to both, well, it makes any claim to Gitmo's legitimacy a bunch of cow patties. And that's not even considering the administration's record of lying/error on EVERYTHING about Iraq. Peace.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    I have no wish to hijack the thread or exceed my limit. Suffice it to say, I don't think the armed forces of the country are randomly picking up stray muslims in the world. if so, why are the numbers so few? when I see the "kidnapping" reference, I realize where the sympathies of the poster are(for current example, see Israel being blamed for causing the poor Palestinians to burn synagogues). You can accept the poor put upon victim theory of islamic terrorism or face reality-I won't hold my breath.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    char-Who made you Mr. Psychic? If what you fantasize were true, why not give the prisoners their due process and follow Geneva Convention rules like civilized nations do? Also if even just one person was imprisoned it does not make it any less criminal, as you suggest.
    I don't think the armed forces of the country are randomly picking up stray muslims in the world. if so, why are the numbers so few?
    The numbers are not few. There are several American prison camps around the world, and I do not mean summer camps. Also there is the horror of Abu Ghraib and other Iraq 'prisons' which hold 10,000+ "stray muslims picked off the street" by US forces and their Iraqi lackeys.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:45 PM EST
    Et al - One small point. The investigation produced three instances of abuse. Maybe alleged means "alleged." Ed B - First of all, these people are not POW's. They do not meet the guidelines of the GC. Secondly, perhaps we have released too many.
    Of the people that we've released, we've captured a number of them or killed a number (10) of them back on the battlefield in Afghanistan.... Among the names listed in the memo is Mohammed Yusif Yaqeb (search), also known as Mullah Shazada. Yaqeb was released in May 2003. He proceeded to become the head of Taliban (search) operations in southern Afghanistan and was killed one year later in a fight with U.S. forces. Also named is Maulavi Abdul Ghaffar (search), released in 2002 and returned to Afghanistan. As a regional commander, Ghaffar helped carry out attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan until he was killed by Afghan forces in September 2004.
    Guess if you don't get right the first time, you have to do it again.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    charley: I don't think the armed forces of the country are randomly picking up stray muslims in the world. if so, why are the numbers so few? That's about the lamest argument I ever saw, charley. You can't believe that the US is kidnapping innocent people and transporting them to Guantanamo Bay (and, as Squeaky points out, elsewhere) because the world is full of innocent people and, by comparison, there are so few people in Guantanamo Bay - a mere 500 or so? (As Squeaky points out, more are held elsewhere, but still a very small fraction of the world's population, I'd agree.) JimakaPPJ: First of all, these people are not POW's. They do not meet the guidelines of the GC. Now, Jim, you know perfectly well that's not true, because I've lost track of the number of times I explained it to you before it dawned on me that you intended to repeat this lie even though you knew it wasn't true. However, since it's been a while, let's run through it again. Article 5 of the relevant Geneva Convention specifies: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." Now, plainly "doubt arose" in the minds of the Bush administration that their prisoners belonged to the categories specified under Article 4. Therefore, as clearly laid out in Article 5, all the prisoners taken "having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy" were entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention until a competent tribunal had been provided to determine whether the prisoners were PoWs under Article 4, or civilians, and therefore entitled to the protection of the other relevant Geneva Convention. Since the Bush administration made no attempt to hold competent tribunals for any of its prisoners in Guantanamo Bay for nearly three years, and since the tribunals it did eventually hold were deemed illegal, not "competent", the Bush administration has been in breach of at least one of the Geneva Conventions since January 2002.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    Jesurgislac writes:
    "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons,
    If there is no doubt that they do not meet the qualifications stated in Article 4, then it doesn't apply. Thanks for making my point. BTW - If they are "civilians," then the historical penalty has been death. These guys are clearly getting a good deal. Squeaky writes:
    stray muslims picked off the street" by US forces and their Iraqi lackeys.
    Squeak, do you still claim to support the troops?

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#13)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    Jim, I doubt any system that will not put their evidence to the test by granting a public hearing. I think that my doubt is pretty reasonable. I guess that article 4 would apply

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    Roger - These are not stick up guys, and this is not the US' CJ system. It is terribly messed up, but trying these people as if it was would just be silly.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    Jim claimed: If there is no doubt that they do not meet the qualifications stated in Article 4, then it doesn't apply. Again, as you already know because we've been over this a number of times before, this is not true, for two reasons. 1: Because no legal system except that of a totalitarian state accepts the reasoning "We know they're guilty, so we don't have to bother with a trial to prove it". 2: Because, as became clearer and clearer since January 2002 when the US set up Guantanamo Bay in defiance of the Geneva Conventions, many of those imprisoned there were indeed not guilty of anything but being Muslim males in the wrong place at the wrong time - and a competent tribunal, as required by the Geneva Conventions, would have discovered this.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#16)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    Jim, This IS the US system, just a new "improved" one. I dont consider our 200+ yr old system "silly", I am sorry to hear that you feel that way.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    Jim asserted: These are not stick up guys You're right, Jim, they're not. For example, two of them (Bisher Al-Rawi and Jamil Al-Banna) are British residents who made the mistake of flying while Muslim. They're businessmen who wanted to set up a peanut processing plant in the Gambia, not "stick up guys". That is one of the most outrageous cases of kidnapping where the victims are still held in Guantanamo Bay, but there are other examples.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    Jesurgislac - I never said we shouldn't release some. As a matter of fact, if you bothered to read my link, we have released at least 10 that we have had to re-capture, or kill, for doing what they said they weren't doing. Our differences are many. Chief among them is that I don't see this as something the US legal system should be involved in. The tribunals are sorting out the ones we have question about, the others should stay where they are at.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    Jim: Chief among them is that I don't see this as something the US legal system should be involved in. Judging by your previous comments, you do not appear to feel that any legal system ought to be involved except that of a totalitarian state.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    One thing I don't get, why are they force feeding the prisoners?

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    Force-feeding prisoners is widely considered to be a human rights violation, kdog, but as the prison at Guantanamo Bay is itself an illegal prison, I suppose the people who run it feel they have nothing left to lose.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    Thanks J. Makes sense. I feel even prisoners have the right to refuse food, and force feeding them adds more barbarism to that hellhole. What I still don't get is that since so many Americans seem to believe beyond any doubt that the prisoners there deserve to die (or simply don't care), and the prisoners themselves seem to want to die, why not let them starve themselves to death?

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    why should an enemy combatant have access to our civil legal system? I've yet to hear an argument favorable to it that deals with the problems inherent both logistically and morally. the evidentiary standards of our civil system are impossible to meet. the history of doing so is non-existent(any recollection of trying thousands of Nazi prisoners in WWII). I am afraid it all boils down to being on the side of the bad guys to the detriment of this country. hate to tell you this, but you are with the head choppers and synagogue burners. froth away

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    char-Good point about due process and the lack of it with Chimp King's new subhuman category "Enemy Combatant"
    any recollection of trying thousands of Nazi prisoners in WWII.
    empahsis added is mine.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    and this is not the US' CJ system. And nobody says that the prisoners are entitled to being treated as if they were in the CJ system. Just like when you made that remark about letting the 'enemy combatants' out on bail in another thread on this topic, nobody here is arguing for what you think is the logical result of following the Geneva Conventions, so you can put your strawman away, unless someone here needs a scarecrow for their winter garden.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    charley: why should an enemy combatant have access to our civil legal system? Some of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are civilians kidnapped by the US, one example of which I've linked to above. Those prisoners are undoubtedly entitled to access to the US civil legal system: they deserve redress against the people who had them kidnapped and imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay. Some of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are enemy combatants: each one of them is entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war until the US holds a competent tribunal for each of them to show that they are not entitled to the status of PoWs. (At which point, they become entitled to the status of "civilans in time of war", for which there is another Geneva Convention.)

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    these arguments have been shown to be wrong so many times as to defy belief but keep making them. there is no obligation to treat folks who don't follow the rules as pow's-otherwise, why wouldn't the rules simply state you shall treat all as pow's, thus effectively empowering those who don't follow the rules. the interpretation you back, far from being enlightening or high minded, is a step backwards as it encourages, not discourages, violations. have you answered the question re why no trials for Nazis yet?

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#29)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    Charley, I guess that you just "forgot" about Nuremberg

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#30)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    Charley, By your twisted, Orwellian logic, Hitler's henchmen deserved the trials they received, but these prisoners in Gitmo and elsewhere do not? Even when we KNOW many innocent people were swept up, when people have been released years later with a "oops, i guess you're not a threat, bye bye". Acting as a totalitarian nation, in Cuba no less, is a complete disgrace and another reason much of the world view us as reactionary cowboys with a wild west disregard for international law.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#31)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    kdog Here's the answer to your question about why we shouldn't let hunger strikers die, though I don't agree with force feeding them. I'm not surprised that the United States is practicing barbarism under the leadership of George W. Bush, who apparently is little more than a barbarian himself judging by his compassion for the Katrina survivors. I've posted some permutation of this answer a number of times, all you right wingers, read it, learn it, know it, so that when your little world collapses, and you find yourselves being dragged off to Guantánamo or some other gulag, you won't be able to say no one ever told me. ----------------------------------- Historically all we need do is look at the hunger strikes by IRA members imprisoned in Northern Ireland during the 1980s. The British government underestimated the resolve of these political prisoners to their great detriment. Not only did the deaths of these hunger strikers garner sympathy worldwide for their cause, it helped to consolidate the will of every other IRA member who watch their compatriots dwindle away over a period of months. The name Bobby Sands became a rallying cry which helped the IRA hold on for another 30 years. Today there's a street in Tehran named after Bobby Sands. The Islamic world has a long memory and pays much greater homage to history then we seem to. Let these detainees die and you'll have streets named after them springing up all over the Muslim world. The United States does not want to make the same mistake that the British did. Unlike the IRA hunger strikers, these detainees have not been tried or convicted of any crime. If we were to allow them to die the impact on the Islamic world and the implications for the struggle against terrorism can only be guessed at. ------------------------------------ With the force feeding that's going on down in Cuba, soon were going to have a whole prison full of Terri Schiavo's, and all you "culture of life" folks can then take up their cause.

    Re: Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    charley: there is no obligation to treat folks who don't follow the rules as pow's Yes, there is: you would know that if you checked the text of the relevant Geneva Convention, which I quoted from and linked to above. otherwise, why wouldn't the rules simply state you shall treat all as pow's The Geneva Convention states (as I already explained, with cites) that you must treat all captured combatants as PoWs until a competent tribunal has shown that a combatant is not entitled to be treated as a PoW. The Bush administration have brought the US into breach of the Geneva Convention firstly, because they have imprisoned those who were not even combatants, and secondly, because they failed to show before competent tribunals that the detainees are not entitled to PoW status. By your reasoning, as the US is currently not "following the rules", no US soldier would he entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention if captured. Fortunately, the Geneva Conventions still protect soldiers from states who are breaking the rules.

    Hunger Protest Continues at Guantanamo | 30 comments (30 topical)