Miami Herald: Ramadan at Guantánamo: Nightly force-feedings

[seafan]

As ordered by the Peace Laureate.



Ramadan at Guantánamo: Nightly force-feedings

BY CAROL ROSENBERG
August 24, 2010

Here's a new twist in the U.S. military's Islamic sensitivity effort in the prison camps for suspected terrorists at the Guantánamo Bay Navy base:

Military medical staff are force-feeding a secret number of prisoners on hunger strike between dusk and dawn during the Muslim fasting holiday of Ramadan.

The prison camps spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Bradley Fagan, says it is U.S. Southern Command policy to no longer reveal the exact number of detainees being shackled by guards into restraint chairs for twice daily feedings.

.....

``Detainees who are fasting get their meals before dawn,'' he said Wednesday, disclosing only the hours of that day's feeding ``in observance of the Ramadan schedule'' -- before 5:26 a.m. and after 7:28 p.m.

.....

As prison camps spokesman, Fagan has clamped a new level of secrecy on the Pentagon's practice of pumping protein shakes into the stomachs of captives who refuse to eat meals catered to the prison camps by Defense Department contractors.

A fact sheet dated June 28 on the Guantánamo website disclosed some other figures: ``Each detainee receives 5,500-6,000 calories per day and has six menus to choose from. Feast meals are served two times per week.''

.....

Fagan did say that the prison camps is hewing to past practice of using military medical staff for feedings.

To demystify it a bit, Navy prison camp hospital workers some years back created a display of different flavored supplements and let visiting reporters handle a sample yellow rubber feeding tube.

By last summer, staff were pointing to Butter Pecan flavored Ensure as popular with the chair-shackled captives. Flavor made no difference going down, one nurse explained, but a captive could taste it if he burped later.

When is it going to stop?


God help us all.

[Uzybone]

1. Horrible, what should we do with the Gitmo captives?

[msanthrope]

2. Why did you snip out the number of detainees this is happening to?

Oh, right---'cause that's less of a story than implying there's mass force-feeding going on....


"Instead, he said, ``less than 10'' captives among the 176 held for years at Guantánamo were last week counted as hunger strikers.

``Detainees who are fasting get their meals before dawn,'' he said Wednesday, disclosing only the hours of that day's feeding ``in observance of the Ramadan schedule'' -- before 5:26 a.m. and after 7:28 p.m.

``Please note,'' he added, ``that not all hunger strikers are enteral feeders.''"

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/08/24/1788938/ramadan-at-guantanamo-bay-includes.html#ixzz0xg9ZjznW

[depakid]

4. That it's happening to ANYONE is a source of shame

[msanthrope]

5. Should we let them starve?

It's not ideal, but what's the alternative? Let the detainees kill themselves?

[depakid]

9. How about using the powers of the executive branch and transferring the detainees elsewhere?

You know- as the candidate and later president repeatedly promised to do?

[msanthrope]

11. Precisely where? And, can you explain how an executive order

trumps the MCA of 2009? Obama just can't make an EO that doesn't comply with an Act of Congress.

ETA--of course, you understand that Congress, in 2009, put provisions in the MCA that prevents the President from just making an EO and closing Gitmo....

Here's a letter the administration sent to the appropriations committee, trying to force some action. It's worth a read.



http://documents.nytimes.com/general-joness-letter-to-the-house-appropriations-committee

[depakid]

14. Ever heard the words: Commander in Chief of the military and the Bureau of Prisons?

Last I saw, those were executive branch functions.

The President could have the detainees out of there if he wanted- in any number of ways.

[msanthrope]

16. Right--and the laws of Congress do not apply?

His power as CIC isn't absolute.

Nor is he CIC of BOP. (In fact, how is BOP even involved? Oh, never mind...)

As the letter I posted from General Jones details, in 2009, Congress amended the MCA to preclude an EO closure of Gitmo. Right now, the admin can't even get Obey to do an appropriations hearing on the matter.

I love how you think an EO would just wave some fairy dust and close Gitmo, but you haven't explained how that happens.

[depakid]

17. More of the "poor weak Obama excuses"

Military decisions and administrative agency actions are independent of Congress unless it affirmatively acts with a veto proof majority in both houses.

The executive doesn't need a special appropriation to transfer detainees (or prisoners) under their auspices.

They could all be in Leavenworth tomorrow, and there wouldn't be a thing Congress could do about it.

[msanthrope]

20. The MCA of 2009 prevents detainees from entering America.

Unless, of course, for the purposes of trial.

"This year, Congress restricted the ability of the executive branch to transfer detainees into domestic prisons, a ban reiterated in the 2010 military appropriations bill."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/us/politics/23gitmo.html


Perhaps you could explain how an EO voids that law? You know, that pesky thing....the LAW.

And why Leavenworth would be a good idea? Or do you think that mixing detainees and servicepeople is a good idea for either population?

As for the Thomson prison, BOP doesn't have the money, and won't have it until Congress appropriates it. Thus, the letter I posted from General Jones to Obey....not for anything, but until BOP has $, how are they going to set up a prison for the detainees?

[depakid]

23. OK, I hadn't seen that specific prohibition

Guess dealing with that would require horse trading and political fortitude.

Meaning that we won't see the administration fulfil their promise on this matter, either.

One more reason to be thankful that most people here assume my Oregon accent is Canadian,

[msanthrope]

24. (facepalm)

Look, for the THIRD TIME, I'm suggesting you read the letter from General Jones to David Obey, which is the 'horse trading and political fortitude' you seek. Obama wants repeal/modification, and MONEY to buy Thomson in Illinois.

Unless Appropriations actually appropriates some damn money, no detainee is going anywhere.

And unless David Obey schedules a hearing, this whole process is stalled.

Welcome to the checks and balances of the Constitution. Obama can't 'make' Congress repeal crap he doesn't like.

Canadians.... ;)

[depakid]

26. Well, unless the administration has something that Congress wants

and is willing to withold it in return for for what he's claimed to have as a priority, then nothing will get done on the matter.

A fair assessment?

Color me less than hopeful.

btw: they really do assume it's a Canadian accent (and/or believe it or not -that Oregon's in Canada). Every now and again I get a question out of the blue about ice hockey!

[pnwmom]

13. That wouldn't make them eat. They could try to starve themselves anywhere. n/t

[Chulanowa]

32. It's not a binary equation

There's the option of actually working with htem to end their hunger strike, as well.

[Jefferson23]

7. Is it less of a story to you, with less than 10? n/t

[msanthrope]

10. It's a different story. The former implies widespread forced

feeding--which would imply widespread hunger-strikes. Which would indicate a deterioration of conditions.

Here, you have less than 10 on hunger strikes, and less than that being tube-fed. So it suggests that with less than 2% of the prison population showing such extreme behavior, conditions at Guantanamo might have improved from the Bush Administration. (at one point, it was estimated that nearly 20% of detainees were being force-fed.)

This is a good thing--unless you are hoping that conditions at Gitmo are bad so that you make a political point. Which is easy to do on the backs of those suffering.

I want Gitmo to be as pleasant as possible for those forced to be there. I hope President Obama is able to either free, or prosecute every prisoner, as justice requires.

[Jefferson23]

12. It's different only in number, the story remains the same, no more or less

changes the reality for those held.

I do share in your last statement, for hope to see this end.

[msanthrope]

3. Double post. n/t

[seafan]

6. Many people don't grasp that America's reputation for humane treatment of prisoners is lost forever.

After the Bush catastrophe, the constitutional scholar now in the White House shows no sign of ending indefinite detention without due process.


It is truly, America's shame.

[Hannah Bell]

8. 5500-6000 calories a day???? why? that's a calorie level suitable

for top athletes in training or men doing hours of hard physical labor.

do they have them out breaking rocks for 8 hours a day?

is it a concentration work camp?

[msanthrope]

15. Great. Now the President is running a "concentration work camp?"

They are offered that many calories--they aren't required to eat them all. This video details it....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TER7DN8uxac

[Hannah Bell]

18. maybe you should review the functions of question marks. you seem confused.

i'm failing to see the point of "offering" 6000 calories unless there's hard physical labor involved.

6 ft male, 200 lbs, moderately active, exercise 5 times/week: calorie recs = 2800-3000.

[BeFree]

19. How many calories does torture eat up?

It is nice to see you so concerned with the health and dietary requirements of these people who have never been in front of a judge.

I'm sure they'd thank you for your concern. :puke:

[Hannah Bell]

27. like i care what you think.

[BeFree]

29. I care what you think

Because what you think is allowing these people to continue to be mistreated.

And that shit needs to stop.

[Hannah Bell]

31. lol. yeah, it's all *my* fault. because i question the report of 6000 calories per day,

a fantastic number.

[msanthrope]

22. Why do you care if they are being offered the ability to choose?

I mean, this isn't difficult to figure out....offering MORE calories than necessary means that a detainee can choose to omit something they may not care to eat.

It means that they need not eat things they don't like in order to survive, unlike in many prison situations, where prisoners are forced to eat everything they are served simply to maintain themselves.

If they don't like the carrots, then no carrots.

I don't begrudge them the extra food, and I certainly don't think it's being given to them so they can do 'hard labor.'

Jeebus...of all the things to question....

[Hannah Bell]

25. um, a menu has the same function.

[msanthrope]

28. Who is going to know what vegetables they want 2 weeks ahead of time?

Per the video, the menus are like an airline menu--choose the salt-restricted, or the 'soft' or the 'halah' meals.

It isn't a la carte.

And it's selected 2 weeks in advance--in part because every single bit of food has to be pre-ordered and delivered to Gitmo. Supply takes time.

Again, given everything these prisoners face, why is this even a concern?

[Hannah Bell]

30. supply takes time everywhere. something wrong with the story or the food service.

nothing this food service does is significantly different from any other large foodservice. every food service has to "pre-order". it's *not* like an airline menu -- an airline menu pre-prepares because there's no kitchen in a plane. that's not a constraint here. it's more like a hospital menu.

the article makes it sound like they're preparing 6000 calories worth of food/d for every prisoner & probably half of it is waste unless the prisoners are expending double the calories they would as civilians.

[Ignis]

35. No, the USA is. Why are you making this about Obama?

:shrug:

[Jax]

36. That is all this one ever has.

and right wing talking points.

[Chulanowa]

33. If we can't win their hearts and minds over to America...

Then we can at least give them the girth of America.

[MilesColtrane]

21. So it's come to this...cultural and religiously sensitive torture?

Pogo was right.

[frylock]

34. obama closed gitmo..

i saw it on "the list."