.
From the NYTimes:
A hunger strike among detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who have been imprisoned by the United States military without trial — some for more than a decade — is continuing to grow, although there is sharp disagreement between the military and lawyers for the detainees about how many are participating.
As of Monday morning, 28 of the 166 prisoners had refused enough continuous meals to be deemed hunger strikers in the official count, and 10 of them were being force fed, said a military spokesman, Capt. Robert Durand. That was up from 26 hunger strikers and 8 who were being force fed on Friday, according to the military’s count. Three detainees have been hospitalized for dehydration, Captain Durand added.
Lawyers for detainees, however, citing declassified notes of conversations with their clients in person and by phone, claim that the military’s numbers are significantly undercounting the actual level of participation. Their clients have told them that an overwhelming majority of the detainees in Camps Five and Six — where low-level suspects who are not facing any charges before a military commission, the bulk of the inmate population, are being held — have been refusing to eat for weeks, they said….
Lawyers for detainees and military officials agree that waning hopes for any release among low-level prisoners are an underlying cause of the unrest. Congress has placed restrictions on further transfers, nearly halting any departures even though about half of the remaining inmates were cleared for release years ago. The bulk of the low-level detainees are Yemenis.
Because it now appears that the prison will remain open indefinitely, the United States Southern Command, which overseas Guantánamo, has requested nearly $200 million to renovate facilities that were built to be temporary and are now deteriorating, including barracks and a meal hall for the guards.
From Wikipedia:
On many occasions in the past prisoners have been force-fed by feeding tube when they went on hunger strike. It has been prohibited since 1975 by the Declaration of Tokyo of the World Medical Association, provided that the prisoner is “capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment”….
It would be much worse if Mitt Romney were in the Oval Office. But that’s one thing for which history won’t call Romney to account.
Cermet
Many of those poor wretch’s were bushwhacked by bloody hand’s cheney.
YoohooCthulhu
“Prohibited by the Declaration of Tokyo of the World Medical Association” just means that physicians cannot administer the feeding tubes. Nurses/EMTs/medics can all do it without getting into professional hot water. It’s not like anyone signed a treaty prohibiting it or anything, it’s just considered medically unethical. It’s not “prohibited” in the same sense torture is prohibited.
Somehow I don’t think Guantanamo is terribly concerned with medical ethics.
Ben Franklin
Anne; The Administration is upset with you for highlighting this. Let’s all build a campfire and sing some songs.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/21/detainees-attorneys-angered-by-cancellation-of-flights-to-guantanamo/
taylormattd
One wonders why Romney is brought up at all, given this has *literally* nothing whatsoever to do with the office of the presidency.
In fact, it’s worse than that, given the current president attempted to shut the place down, but was rebuffed by a massive majority of both republicans and democrats in Congress.
So again, why would Anne Laurie mention the presidency in her post?
Schlemizel
@YoohooCthulhu:
Every person I have read about that was tortured by officials always said seeing the doctor was the worst thing you could see. That meant an expert was going to determine how much more you could take & not die. Also they would often drug or patch you up enough so you could survive a few more sessions.
As evil as the torturers were the doctors were by far the worst.
Baud
If history is honest, it won’t hold Obama to account either, unless historians lose the ability to distinguish between the presidency and Congress.
Chris
@Baud:
This. I’ve had my share of moments of frustration WRT Obama, but this isn’t one of them. Democrats in Congress, on the other hand…
taylormattd
@Baud: Oh how dare you Baud. Anne Laurie was simply discussing Mitt Romney ok???
MikeJ
@Baud:
If Anne Laurie can’t tell the difference why should historians?
Comrade Dread
As I recall, there was a great shrieking and gnashing of teeth from the Capitol building that one time when POTUS said we should close the place down and move them into normal prisons.
taylormattd
@MikeJ: One would hope or pray most historians aren’t quite as Obama deranged. But who knows, that may well be a pipe dream.
Gravenstone
@taylormattd: So you forget about Romney’s loud and proud declaration during the interminable debates that he would “double Guantanamo”? That’s the connection there ace, in case it slipped your laser sharp focus of finding ODS under every rock and in every post.
taylormattd
@Gravenstone: Hey dumbshit, what is the purpose of writing this sentence?:
Ben Franklin
@taylormattd:
Uh, because Romney isn’t Presidunce?
eemom
@taylormattd:
To be fair, the passive-aggressive Obama bashing at least injects that note of personal authorship so rare in an AL post.
Gravenstone
@taylormattd: Buh bye fuckknob
cathyx
So what’s the purpose of keeping them alive? They will never get a trial, they will have to live there the rest of their lives. Who would want to live like that? I don’t blame them for wanting to kill themselves. America just wants to torture them some more because this is a sick and twisted nation.
Ben Franklin
@cathyx:
America just wants to torture them some more because this is a sick and twisted nation.
Yes, but it’s the best place in the World. If Obama could get rid of Guantanano, he would.
It’s Congress and the American people who want it. Obama is the furtive, unsettled marionette; helpless in the face of so many civil-libertiy abusers.
LanceThruster
Kafka would be turning over in his roach motel he would.
jamick6000
@Baud:
??? Most of the prisoners have been cleared for release years ago. Congress has placed additional restrictions on their release, but releasing cleared detainees is still very possible, if the administration wanted to do it. Here is the director of the anti-torture campaign for Physicians for Human Rights on the topic:
Baud
@jamick6000:
Well, that’s inconsistent to other analysis I’ve read, which said that the NDAA imposes pretty high hurdles on release.
lumpkin
@taylormattd:
>>>It would be much worse if Mitt Romney were in the Oval Office. But that’s one thing for which history won’t call Romney to account.<<<
I read this as a sad statement that illegal detention at Guantanamo Bay will be an indelible stain on Obama's presidency, even though Romney and other republicans are avid supporters of this horrid situation. He did try to shut it down, but not very hard. I understand the politics of it – presumably he decided it was not worth expending the political capital necessary to convince the public of the lawlessness and immorality of it. From a political perspective, it was probably the right thing to do. Sausage-making and all that. We live in a muddled world and even leaders have to accept their own limitations.
lol
Another problem for the detainees we’re fine with releasing, is that there isn’t a country that will take them, or in some cases, their home country will execute them.
jamick6000
@Baud: you may be right; i’m not a lawyer so I can’t really say. but I thought that was an interesting perspective from someone close to the situation.
Dave
Obama tried to shut down Gitmo. But Congress, including such progressive heroes like Bernie Sanders, refused to vote the money and authority to do so. Omitting that part of the story is basically lying about what happened.
MattR
To me “closing Gitmo” is a bit of a red herring because it is pretty much a meaningless gesture if you are just going to detain the prisoners indefinitely in the United States (which I believe was Obama’s plan though I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong)
@lol: This is defintely a major problem. I hope that at least there are improved living conditions at Gitmo for those we think are safe to release but have no where safe to go.
Baud
@MattR:
I thought the plan was to try them in federal court.
MattR
@Baud: Some of them, yes. But I believe that the vast majority are in a state where we don’t have sufficient evidence that can be used in court – either it does not exist, is hearsay or was obtained through torture.
FWIW, according to this GAO report from Nov 2012, 86 of the 166 inmates were eligble for release if they can find a place to send them while 46 have been deemed too dangerous to be released but are not facing prosecution.
lojasmo
@taylormattd:
Anybody remember Romney’s response to Obama’s attempt to shut down Gitmo?
Baud
@MattR:
I can’t recall the details, but I thought anyone who couldn’t be convicted, for whatever reason, would be released. I just don’t remember.
MattR
@Baud: See the update to my comment above. There are 166 prisoners at Gitmo (as of Nov 2012) 46 are considered too dangerous to release but not able to be prosecuted while there are another 24 cases still being reviewed. 7 prisoners are currently on trial, 3 have been convicted while the remaining 86 are eligible for release if we can figure out where to.
(EDIT: I realize that this doesn’t exactly answer the question of what would have happened if Obama had implemented his plan)
Baud
@MattR:
Thanks. Can’t look now but I’ll check it out later.
Omnes Omnibus
Test
Shalimar
@taylormattd: She isn’t the one who comes across as deranged in this thread and the next, at least to me. Did she run over one of your pets or something?
Keith G
Unfortunately, Guantanamo is a case of the President writing a check that his administration just could not cash.
I believe he wanted it to happen, but at that early stage, he did not have, nor were any of is inner circle able give him, a realistic view of that political landscape – a view one might argue that did not show up for a few years.
Remember, he signed the executive order
his administration conducted the study showing that less than 25 detainees could be prosecuted and that about 50 were too dangerous to ever release. The report should have come first, then a strategy on how to sell this change.
Maybe he could have fought the good fight back in mid 2009, but as I recall, he had a few other issues needing political effort. So they cut their losses and efforts to move the ball on Guantanamo were never employed.
Patricia Kayden
“Because it now appears that the prison will remain open indefinitely”
Hopefully this isn’t true. Why has the Left given up on this?
taylormattd
@lumpkin:
I read it that way too.
And only a moron would think that, given Obama is like the only politician who attempted to close the place.
But you know. Keep fuckin’ that chicken.
clayton
Yes, yes. Had Hillary won she would have shut that shit down.
Or
If only Obama would wield the power he has this wouldn’t be.
What makes you think Congress will authorize this new money when they wouldn’t authorize moving the current inmates to the states? Oh, wait. Unlike the avalanche of senators coming out for the gay marriage, they are still to frightened about the taxi drivers in Gitmo.
Yet you still blame Obama. No better than a talk radio yacker.
clayton
@taylormattd:
Anne Laurie won’t reply to you.
She’s only got a chip on her shoulder about John Cole and Hillary Clinton.
You must remember how she takes things out on her targets in posts.
Read that last bit as “had Hillary won” and proceed per usual.
El Cid
Doesn’t the AUMF authorize them to die?
eemom
What, you mean this is actually an intensely complex and nuanced issue that can’t be distilled into a lazy ass two sentence sideswipe? Say it ain’t so….
chuckieboy
Hey, you people sound like capitalist apologists. What about Bobby Sands? A man that had the courage to confront injustice, and along the way sacrifice his life for his refusal to tolerate the control of hImself, and his country by a racist, unauthorized foreign power. Long live Bobby Sands.
David Koch
it’s been FIVE years since Hillary lost.
FIVE years.
Get over it.
TG Chicago
So… really?
Nobody here thinks that Obama could end the force-feeding of prisoners if he chose to?
I seriously doubt that requires the authorization of Congress.
TG Chicago
@taylormattd:
If Obama can sign an executive order ending torture, why couldn’t he sign one to end force-feeding?
TG Chicago
@Dave:
Bringing up Bernie Sanders without pointing out that he voted against the act because he objected to simply moving the lawless prison onto US shores? That’s also basically lying.
Sanders didn’t want there to be a legal black hole anywhere in US jurisdiction. Obama did; he just wanted it in Tomson, IL, rather than Guantanamo Bay.
David Koch
@TG Chicago: that’s not what he said.
This is what St. Bernie said of his vote:
Really? After nearly 9 years of GITMO, St. Bernie needed a blue-ribbon panel to tell him whether any prisoners deserved to be released? After nearly 9 years of GITMO, St. Bernie needed a blue-ribbon panel to tell him whether to appropriate $80 million to close down GITMO. All of the sudden, St. Bernie Sanders became fiscally conservative and joined Joe Lieberman and Mitch McConnell to block all releases because, gosh darn it, he just didn’t know what to do?
HA!
The prophet Nostradumbass
@chuckieboy: Bobby Sands, in prison for getting into a gun battle with police? Here is the world’s tiniest violin, being played by a wee man in a balaclava, just for him.
TG Chicago
@Baud: Nope. As Obama himself explains at the link below, under his system, some folks might not get a trial, but might get detained indefinitely anyway.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-national-security-5-21-09
TG Chicago
@David Koch: Interesting that you didn’t provide a link. I guess that’s because it would have been easier to notice that just before the part you quoted, Sanders said:
Here’s the link you conveniently forgot:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9c1770cc-37d6-4fdf-8f00-a59e4ae2bba3
So clearly Sanders wanted Guantanamo shut down, but wasn’t happy with the plan for the prisoners. Given the plan Obama came up with (see my link above at #49), it’s easy to see why he was reticent to go with Obama’s “move the legal black hole elsewhere” idea.
David Koch
@TG Chicago:
Bwahahahhahahahahahhahahhahahahhahahahhahahahhahahah
where does he say he isn’t happy? to the contrary, he says he doesn’t know what to feel until the blue-ribbon panel tells him. Well, if he really felt that he couldn’t make a decision due to a lack of facts he should have just voted “present”. C’mon, after 9 years he didn’t know enough about GITMO that he had to join Lieberman and McConnell. That’s a lameo lie and you know it. He didn’t want to cast a vote calling for prisoner release and he didn’t want to disappoint his cult-like groupies so he feigned ignorance of the situation. I mean, the language of the vote was simple: “To prohibit funding to transfer, release, or incarcerate detainees detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to or within the United States”. Your contention is that he was against the continued incarceration of the prisoners in Tomson (which he never says), but even if that was true, St. Bernie went well beyond that by voting against any release.
but go ahead, prove me wrong, put up a link to St. Bernie saying his votes to block closing gitmo on May 20th were in objection to obummer’s legal black hole. And go ahead, put up a link to st. bernie explaining why he voted against any prisoner release.
TG Chicago
So why do you think Sanders explicitly said that he wants Gitmo closed if he was somehow afraid of the politics of being for Gitmo closure? That makes no sense.
After 8 years of the Bush Administration, he didn’t know what the plan was for Gitmo prisoners post-Gitmo because the Bush Administration’s plan was to keep them in Gitmo forever.
Here’s what Sanders said he wanted shortly after Obama was elected:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=b1aed188-dc84-44d3-a134-c6845926498a
Notice how he says he wants a plan and a review of prisoners? And that he wants all detainees to either be released or tried in federal courts? What he said was entirely consistent with that. Obama’s plan had a third option: just keep them in jail forever.
You seem to be complaining about the fact that Sanders went easy on his criticisms of the newly inaugurated President. But his point was clear. There was no adequate process in place, and he didn’t want to vote for something which could end up as a new legal black hole (not to mention that he didn’t want to vote for more money for Iraq and Afghanistan with no plan there, either).
Another Halocene Human
@Gravenstone: plonk
Another Halocene Human
@LanceThruster: Kafka would be turning over in his roach motel he would.
Kafka wrote a book called Amerika.
Good call, Franz, good call.
Another Halocene Human
@TG Chicago: Obama did; he just wanted it in Tomson, IL, rather than Guantanamo Bay.
Finish the thought. Obama’s a community organizer. People get exercised about shit that’s in their back yard. Bringing them here was the next step to ending that shit entirely.
Baud
@TG Chicago:
Thanks for the info. You are correct.
cvstoner
Funny how people who express shock abut the internment of Japanese during WW2 couldn’t give two craps about those locked up at Guantánamo Bay.
Yet another stain on our national honor.