home

Guantanamo Force-Feeding Protocol Revealed

Jason Leopold has obtained the March 5, 2013 revised protocol for force-feeding prisoners at Guantanamo. You can read it here .

The policy went into effect about a month after the most recent hunger strikes began. On Friday, the strike will be in its 100th day.

Jason, who recently left Truthout and is now free-lancing, wrote the account for al-Jazeera. He is visiting Gitmo this week to report on the hunger strikes. Not surprisingly, after his arrival today, he received a request from officials to discuss his article.

< DOJ Subponaed AP Reporters' Phone Records | Tuesday News and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The more things change ... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 14, 2013 at 07:15:43 AM EST
    From the article on force feeding of Gitmo detainees:

    Hunger striking Guantanamo prisoners who are force-fed a liquid nutritional supplement undergo a brutal and dehumanising medical procedure that requires them to wear masks over their mouths while they sit shackled in a restraint chair for as long as two hours, according to documentation obtained by Al Jazeera. The prisoners remain this way, with a 61cm - or longer - tube snaked through their nostril until a chest X-ray, or a test dose of water, confirms it has reached their stomach.

    At the end of the feeding, the prisoner is removed from the restraint chair and placed into a "dry cell" with no running water. A guard then observes the detainee for 45-60 minutes "for any indications of vomiting or attempts to induce vomiting". If the prisoner vomits he is returned to the restraint chair.

    Now he's an excerpt from an article about the forced feeding of imprisoned suffragettes in Great Britain one hundred years ago:

    The forcible feeding of women was a brutal and life-threatening procedure conducted against the wishes of the "patient". The hunger striker was held down on a bed by wardresses or tied to a chair which they tipped back. Then a rubber tube was either forced up the nose or down the throat and into the stomach. The latter method was particularly painful because a steel gap was pushed into the mouth and screwed open, as wide as possible. Tissue in the nose and throat was nearly always damaged, while sometimes the tube was accidentally inserted into the windpipe, causing food to enter the lungs and endangering life. This invasion of the body, accompanied by overpowering physical force, suffering and humiliation made many women feel they had been raped, with the words "violation" or "outrage" being commonly used.

    Forcible feeding became particularly cruel and dangerous after the notorious Cat and Mouse Act of 1913 which allowed a hunger striking suffragette who became ill to be released into the community, in order to regain her health, only to be re-arrested when she was well enough to complete her sentence. The process often extended the period of the sentence. Many women, such as Grace Roe and Kitty Marion, were force fed more than 200 times. Some wrote accounts of their horrendous experiences for the WSPU organ the Suffragette or the few sympathetic newspapers that would print their story. That an all-male "Liberal" government inflicted such torture upon women who were excluded from the parliamentary process added to the sense of revulsion that many women and some members of the public felt. It was not until the outbreak of the first world war in August 1914 that the procedure stopped when the WSPU leadership called a temporary suspension to all militancy and the government granted an amnesty to all suffrage prisoners.

    You could almost transpose the material from these articles and they'd deliver the same message.

    And I guess if history is any model we have to wait for a World War for this horrendous practice to end.


    Let's just say (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Zorba on Tue May 14, 2013 at 05:30:36 PM EST
    the dirty word.  It's a war crime.  Period.  As well as a crime against humanity.  It is one among many of the stains upon this country that we are still perpetrating.

    Parent
    This also happened (none / 0) (#14)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:27:51 PM EST
    to U.S. suffragists who chained themselves to the White House fence.

    Just fyi, the process has changed since the early 20th century to be less harsh.

    Parent

    Stalin wants to discuss the article? (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Dadler on Tue May 14, 2013 at 07:28:41 AM EST
    At least he cares enough to read. Further proof the higher up you go on the power ladder, the more sociopaths and psychopaths are required to be employees. It takes people of a pure and soulless malevolence to work there. They probably carve off pieces of prisoners and make deli sandwiches out of them. You know, real head cheese. Whole thing is disgusting. Too bad the commander in chief of the armed forces is helpless to do anything about our big POW camp/Gulag. Yes congress is corrupt and "blocks" things, but they can't block imagination and creativity. If only our Prez, or any part of our national government, had any.

    Dear Bush administration erm I mean (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 14, 2013 at 07:52:09 AM EST
    Obama administration, how about a rethink on intimidating the press immediately?  You frickers are in trouble now.

    Today (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 14, 2013 at 08:37:17 AM EST
    Justice Department Secretly Obtains AP Phone Records

    What are those rules?

    For starters, the attorney general himself needs to sign off on a subpoena to a reporter. And prosecutors must demonstrate that they made every effort to get the information in other ways before even turning to the press.

    But those rules also say prosecutors need to notify the media organization in advance unless that would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.

    David Schulz, the lawyer for AP, says the guidelines for the Justice Department's dealings with reporters date back to a dark time.

    "They were put into place after Watergate, when everyone was very alarmed by the abuses and excesses of the Nixon Justice Department in subpoenaing reporters and trying to get information about their sources and activities," he says.

    Three years ago, the Justice Department's inspector general found evidence that the FBI was getting phone records from The Washington Post and The New York Times in the Bush administration without following those guidelines.

    It's like Obama is looking back at the Bush Admin and thinking 'That guy knew how to take care of things...'

    Parent

    Nixon resigned ... (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:58:32 AM EST
    but in reality it looks like stayed in power.  And still rules.

    And for all intents and purposes Nixon's proposed "Huston Plan" is now in effect.  In fact, it looks modest compared to current practices.

    Parent

    Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire... (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue May 14, 2013 at 08:32:42 AM EST
    "I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture, and I'm going to make sure that we don't torture."

    "Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction."

    - President Obama

    I guess we're trying to lose then, eh?  The right to refuse to eat is as basic a freedom as freedoms get.  Force feeding is torture.  Stop lying.

    Yup, and this isn't even ... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:53:53 AM EST
    a close run thing.

    As I showed in my post up thread these practices were labelled cruel and unusual a century ago.  

    But why listen to a century of history?  As the admininstration's neocon buds will tell you, history isn't important.

    Parent

    Seriously... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue May 14, 2013 at 11:44:45 AM EST
    even Vinny Barbarino knows it..."up your nose with a rubber hose".

    Parent
    I like Freddy Boom Boom Washington (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Dadler on Tue May 14, 2013 at 02:02:06 PM EST
    "Yeah? Well, if you ask me, all that stuff about harps is a lot of jive. God is backed up by a jazz rhythm section. He got a piano, a bass guitar, and a drummer with a good right foot."

    I just hope that right foot lands hard on someone in power who deserves it.

    Parent

    I heed the message, but disdain the messenger (none / 0) (#8)
    by shoephone on Tue May 14, 2013 at 11:15:02 AM EST
    Isn't Jason Leopold the grandstander who claimed back in ... was it 2006 or 2007?... that Karl Rove had been indicted and was going to be arrested "within four days" for outing Valerie Plame, and that if his sources were lying to him about that, he would out them all and then resign from reporting? Hmm. IIRC, Rove was never indicted, never arrested, Leopold never outed anybody, and his so-called reportage ended up looking a lot more like manufactured b.s. Excuse me if I take any information that emanates from him with a grain of salt.

    The gulag at Guantanamo is stain on the U.S. government, but I'll look to other journalists for information on what's happening there. I prefer credibility in reporting.

    Actually, he was lot closer to the truth (none / 0) (#10)
    by scribe on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:43:41 PM EST
    than you let on.

    In the final opinion issued by the court, once it was unredacted, it was revealed that Rove and Libby were the two main suspects being investigated by Fitzgerald.  Rove was named as a suspect in the opinion.

    Rove called in a favor and had someone whose name I forget right now pop up with a form of alibi that made it impossible for Fitzgerald to be sure he could present a case against Rove to a jury and be confident of winning.  In other words, Rove was too good a liar to be caught.

    Leopold was quite close to getting it right - probably closer than just about anyone else.  http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/05/09/546/66937/valarieplameleak/Karl-Rove-Indictment-Contest

    Remember, too, that Rove went to the grand jury to testify five times....

    Besides, if getting a story wrong seven years ago is the criterion for disbelieving everything a reporter writes thereafter, you might as well turn off the TV and stop reading the papers and internet.  Even Woodward and Bernstein got stuff wrong.

    Parent

    Leopold had credibility problems before Rove (none / 0) (#11)
    by shoephone on Tue May 14, 2013 at 12:57:58 PM EST
    He wrote an article for Salon in 2002 about Thomas White's possible involvement in the Enron scandal, and Salon had to pull the article because:

    1. They couldn't verify Leopold's sources
    2. White denied ever speaking to Leopold
    3. It turned out that Leopold plagiarized nearly 500 words of a Financial Times piece

    Leopold is not a credible journalist, IMO. You can read him and give him props if you like. But please don't try and put him in the same category as Woodward and Bernstein. While Woodward has become one of the most odious bootlickers in D.C., the work he and Bernstein did on Watergate 40 years ago is miles above anything Leopold will ever produce.

    Parent
    Is tube feeding torture ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue May 14, 2013 at 09:44:05 PM EST
    ... only when it's against someone's will? Several times, when I had a partial intestinal blockage, I had to have a nasogastric tube inserted. The tube had to remain for 2-3 days.

    Yes, the process was miserable. But you should know that it is routine in hospitals.  

    Pretty Sure... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 15, 2013 at 12:05:56 PM EST
    ....nearly every procedure done in a hospital would be considered torture and/or illegal if you did it on someone without there consent.

    Parent
    One difference may have been... (none / 0) (#16)
    by unitron on Wed May 15, 2013 at 10:18:51 AM EST
    ...that they weren't doing it to you against your will and you were trying to work with them to make it (tube insertion) happen as easily and painlessly as possible.

    I take it that in your case it was a "taking stuff out" tube?

    My mom went through that about 3 months ago, and doesn't seem to have any fond memories of it. ; - )

    Parent