home

Hunger Strike at Guantanamo 'Unsettles' Military Authorities

by TChris

Two hundred prisoners may be participating in the hunger strike at Guantánamo (discussed by TalkLeft here and here and here), although the military admits to only about half that number. According to the NY Times, the hunger strike "has unsettled senior commanders there and produced the most serious challenge yet to the military's effort to manage the detention of hundreds of terrorism suspects."

One law enforcement official who has been fully briefed on the events at Guantánamo said senior military officials had grown increasingly worried about their capability to control the situation. A senior military official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity, described the situation as greatly troublesome for the camp's authorities and said they had tried several ways to end the hunger strike, without success.

Here's a suggestion: charge and prove the offenses they committed against the United States or let them go home.

After the embarrassing exposure of the military's abusive treatment of detainees, the administration fears the world's reaction if detainees starve themselves to death. But the military can't argue with desperation like this:

[British lawyer Clive Stafford Smith] said that Mr. Deghayes, a Libyan who has lived in London, told him: "Look, I'm dying a slow death in this place as it is. I don't have any hope of fair treatment, so what have I got to lose?"

The military's public face is more upbeat than the reality of force feeding (the military prefers "assisted feeding") detainees, keeping them alive so that they can be imprisoned indefinitely.

The comments of the officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity, probably because their accounts conflict with the more positive descriptions in official military accounts, generally mirrored the statements of lawyers for the detainees, who have received their information from face-to-face interviews with their clients.

The presence of lawyers at Guantánamo allows a flow of accurate information that the administration would prefer to suppress.

Before the advent of lawyer visits, the military had total control over information from Guantánamo. There is now general acknowledgment that there were hunger strikes in 2002 and 2003, but they were largely unknown at the time. The only parties who had solid information when the strikes were occurring were the military authorities and Red Cross officials, who had pledged not to reveal what they learned in their visits in exchange for continued access.

Because lawyers have been telling the truth about what they learn at Guantánamo, the administration has tried to keep them from their clients.

[Kristine Huskey, a lawyer with Shearman & Sterling,] said that the government tried to prevent lawyers from her firm from visiting their clients in recent weeks. She said officials had to be pressed to allow the visits by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the Federal District Court in Washington in at least three telephone conferences.

Clive Smith says that the military agreed to negotiate with a committee of detainees, but it disbanded the committee days later. The military denies that there were "meetings with detainees refusing to eat" but is otherwise declining to comment on the situation. The Geneva Conventions require a country to meet with representative prisoner committees, but the administration contends that it isn't bound by the Conventions at Guantánamo.

< Pressure Builds For CIA to Disclose 9/11 Report | Evacuees Struggle to Receive Services >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Weren't we treated to a display of the marvelous meals served to prisoners in Gitmo. Gee, I guess they didn't see that news conference. Probably they were too busy getting all tied up in naked piles to watch! (I'm being snarky, for the wingnuts who have no sense of humor or I.Q. above 10)

    TL continues to have a basic comprehension problem - the "illegal" part of "illegal combatant" is just too hard to parse, just like the "illegal" part of "illegal alien".

    No, sorry, JR, it is YOU that has a basic comprehension problem if you think pasting the adjective "illegal" on something either makes it so or makes the consequent deprivation of due process, human rights or even clear thought hunky dory. And let me add "illegal drugs" to your discourse as well. Another example where the conclusory use of this adjective is used to cut off all thought, criticism and debate, as if it is a meaningful concept rather than an uninformative solipcism.

    Re: Hunger Strike at Guantanamo 'Unsettles' Milita (none / 0) (#4)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:59 PM EST
    JR, If I continue to refer to you as "the late JR" does that make you a dead person, or a ghost. Keep repeating "illegal combatant", those who were not picked up in combat will be as innocent as you are alive. "All animals are equal" "some pigs are more equal than others" -Animal farm

    Actually, for once James is right. An illegal invasion produces illegal prisoners.

    Re: Hunger Strike at Guantanamo 'Unsettles' Milita (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:59 PM EST
    Making up a term doesn't mean it exists: "illegal combatant" is meaningless, just a false construct to allow bushco to do anything they want.

    Illegal combatant is not meaningless - you should go read the Geneva protocols and learn for yourself. In other wars, illegal combatants have been treated much more harshly - they are generally just shot.

    Re: Hunger Strike at Guantanamo 'Unsettles' Milita (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    you should go read the Geneva protocols and learn for yourself
    I have, there is no reference to 'illegal combatants.' Please provide a link.

    The term more commonly used is "Unlawful combatant", which means someone who is not, according to the rules of war, a lawful combatant. Generally speaking, hiding in the civilian population and not wearing an identifiable uniform are examples of unlawful combat. See here

    Re: Hunger Strike at Guantanamo 'Unsettles' Milita (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    JR-Your link does not answer Sailor's question nor support your claim.
    ...However unlike the terms "combatant" "prisoner of war" and "civilian" the term "unlawful combatant", or similar, is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions.


    how about the left sponsor a "take a terrorist into your home program". you would have to make some changes in your lifestyle if a jew, woman, christian, non-psychopath muslim. I think it would be instructive, though, for those who want to grant terrorists greater protections than those who might think of following the rules.

    Squeaky, I can conclude only one thing. The people who wrote the Geneva Convention are with the terrorists! charley, how about you harbor them since the policies you advocate are so good at creating them in the first place.

    James "I'm Nine Years Old" Robertson": "Generally speaking ... not wearing an identifiable uniform are examples of unlawful combat." O'Reilly! Well, then, it's a real shame that Bush has DEPLOYED ILLEGAL COMBATANTS in Iraq. They're called MERCENARIES, in case you want to look that one up, James. No, wait, you don't have to. The fine people at the UN provided an official definition: "1. A mercenary is any person who: (b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party; They don't wear a uniform, because that would make them legal combatants, and they don't have any legal responsibilities AT ALL, and that's totally illegal, under the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties, like the (above quoted) International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries When is Bush going to stop hiring and helping terrorists?

    Re: Hunger Strike at Guantanamo 'Unsettles' Milita (none / 0) (#14)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    Our government seems to be taking this development rather lightly, not a good idea. Stop worrying about the semantics and the legal designations affixed to these detainees, and start thinking about the big picture and the long-term ramifications which will follow. The Islamic fundamentalists are thinking 10 and 20 years down the road, while US administrations have trouble thinking 20 minutes ahead, apparently much like many who posts on this site. So stop playing partisan patty-cake and wake-up, suicide bombers are coming to your town, and they won't be asking whether you're liberal or conservative before they blow themselves up. ------------ This force feeding solution is only a temporary one, if these individuals feel that they have no other recourse but to starve themselves to death, they'll find other ways of martyring themselves. This is what comes of holding people outside of any acceptable legal process. If these individuals do martyr themselves while they are in US hands, the blow to America will be catastrophic, and the boost to the cause of Islamic fundamentalism can only be speculated upon, but I think it's safe to say that it will likely inspire tens of thousands of other Islamic martyrs. The United States is getting itself into a position that is becoming more untenable by the day and if we're not careful this little war on terrorism is going to morph into something that's will make Vietnam look like a tea party by comparison. The Vietnamese never took our ham fisted military intervention within their country personally, the Islamic world may not be so forgiving with regard to Iraq and these detainees. Soon the terror war may not be the priority it is today because will find ourselves in a shooting war with a unified Middle East who will cut off our oil and fight us to the last man woman and child. Unless we want to see a wall built around the entire border of the continental United States, Hawaii and Alaska, much the way the Israelis have done, in the hopes of keeping out suicide bombers, we'd better get serious and start coming up with some real-world solutions to these mounting problems.

    Southern Poverty Legal Society has compiled SIXTY major terrorist plots by WHITE SUPREMACISTS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES in the last ten years. If you think you can 'externalize' the enemy, that is only because you don't realize that Bush IS the enemy. Your racism IS the enemy. It's keeping you from seeing that Bush is doing everything he can to rake in MONEY -- he couldn't care less about your security. In fact he's dismantling it like everything else he can get his snout into. Fascist Leader, Racist Follower
    charley...who set up bin Laden's Afghan army back in the 1980s? How do freedom fighters morph into terrorists? Think about it. YOU got rid of the Soviet Union, YOU inherited the Afghan terror alumni. So YOU take them in and shelter them now!

    The liar Charley wrote: "I don't blame you for white supremacists" Well, that's real nice. But WE DO BLAME YOU for white supremacists, like Bush and his cronies at FOX. "did the SPLC put that on one of their funding letters-did they note how the plots were investigated and people put away in prison?" Besides the point. With SIX rightwing, white supremacist terror plots per year, it is a LIE that Arabs are involved in the majority of terror threats in the US. "by the way, may I ask one simple question of you with a yes or no answer-did we deserve 9/11?" No, because we didn't elect George Bush, the Vacationing King. "Bin Laden set up his army," The CIA set up both. The CIA also put Saddam Hussein into power. *Please make a note of it.*

    you so consistently make excuses for the other side that it is obvious who you favor
    I am not making excuses, I am pointing out recent world history, which rolls off you like water off a duck's back...allowing you to wallow in the delusions/repeated mistakes of neocon foreign policy. Again, how did bin Laden morph from a freedom fighter in Ronald Reagan's speeches to the terrorist he became later on? As for the elections...we can rejoice now that Afghans have democracy in the sense that they can vote for whoever we allow them to. (Which are the guys that can produce the most opium apparently).