January, 09 2009, 02:03pm EDT
ACLU Calls For End To Inhumane Force-Feeding Of Guantanamo Prisoners
In
light of recent media reports that 25 hunger striking detainees at
Guantanamo are being force-fed through tubes in their noses, the
American Civil Liberties Union sent an urgent letter to Defense
Secretary Robert Gates urging him to end the inhumane and unlawful
practice.
WASHINGTON
In
light of recent media reports that 25 hunger striking detainees at
Guantanamo are being force-fed through tubes in their noses, the
American Civil Liberties Union sent an urgent letter to Defense
Secretary Robert Gates urging him to end the inhumane and unlawful
practice. The letter asks Secretary Gates to allow independent medical
professionals to review and monitor the status of hunger-striking
detainees in a manner consistent with international ethical standards
and to order authorities at the detention facility to revise any
procedure that authorizes force-feeding of detainees.
The ACLU's letter states that 30 of
the 250 men detained at Guantanamo are on hunger strikes, apparently
taking the extreme measure in order to protest their indefinite and
arbitrary detention at the prison. According to the letter,
force-feeding contravenes U.S. domestic and international law and is
universally considered to be a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment.
President-elect Obama has committed to closing the prison at Guantanamo, which is approaching its seventh anniversary.
The full text of the ACLU's letter to Secretary Gates is below and available online at: www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/nationalsecurity/38275res20090109.html
January 9, 2009
Dr. Robert M. Gates
Secretary
United States Department of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000
Dear Secretary Gates,
I am writing to bring your attention
to the cruel, inhuman, degrading and unlawful treatment of the thirty
hunger striking detainees currently held at the Guantanamo Bay
detention facility.
This recent wave of hunger strikes
at Guantanamo coincides with the eve of the seventh anniversary of the
opening of the controversial detention facility that President-elect
Obama has committed to closing. According to press reports, thirty of
the 250 men currently detained at Guantanamo are on hunger strike, the
highest number in months. These detainees, none of whom have been
charged with a crime, appear to be taking this extreme measure in order
to protest their indefinite and arbitrary detention, conditions of
confinement and lack of meaningful access to courts. By refusing food,
these detainees hope to bring public attention to these matters of
international concern.
Detainees at Guantanamo who refuse
nine consecutive meals are classified as being hunger strikers.
Twenty-five of the thirty men classified as such are now being
force-fed through tubes inserted in their noses. These twenty-five
detainees have refused food for twenty-one consecutive days and/or
weigh less than eighty-five percent of their weight on arrival at the
detention facility, according to Pauline Storum, Deputy Commander for
Public Affairs for Joint Task Force Guantanamo.
Approval for the force-feeding
procedure is acquired through sign-off from both a doctor and the
prison camp's commander. The unlawful force-feeding procedure requires
that guards and medical professionals strap the detainee "into a chair,
Velcro his head to a metal restraint, then tether a tube into the man's
stomach through his nose to pump in liquid nourishment twice a day."3
Two of the striking detainees have been force-fed through tubes in
their noses since August 2005. One of these detainees, Imad Hassan, a
thirty-year old Yemeni, has been fed through a tube periodically for
the last three years and suffers from digestive and pancreatic
problems, among other severe health issues.
Debilitating risks of force-feeding
include major infections, pneumonia and collapsed lungs. Five detainees
held at Guantanamo have died in custody since the facility opened in
January 2002. Four of these detainees allegedly committed suicide as an
apparent consequence of the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment they
suffered from and the despair they experienced while being indefinitely
detained without meaningful access to courts and fair trials. A 2006
joint report submitted by five independent human rights experts of the
United Nations Human Rights Council (formerly the Commission on Human
Rights) found that the mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo has had
profound and long-term mental effects on many of them and that
conditions of confinement have led to individual and mass suicide
attempts, widespread and prolonged hunger strikes and over 350 acts of
self-harm in 2003 alone.
Force-feeding is universally
considered to be a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The
aforementioned 2006 United Nations report authoritatively declares that
the manner in which detainees are force-fed and the ethics and legality
of the practice of force-feeding, regardless of the manner in which it
is undertaken, are matters of grave and distinct human rights concerns.
The report additionally stated that the confirmed force-feeding of
detainees on hunger strike amounted to torture as defined in Article 1
of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment which the United States ratified in 1994.
The report also asserts that doctors
and other health professionals authorizing and participating in
force-feeding procedures on detainees are in violation of the rights to
health and other human rights, including those outlined in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which the United
States ratified in 1992. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to
Health shared in the same communication that he had "received reports,
many confirmed by investigations of the United States military, that
health professionals in Guantanamo Bay have systematically violated
widely accepted ethical standards set out in the United Nations
Principles of Medical Ethics and the Declaration of Tokyo [of the World
Medical Association (WMA)]. . . Alleged violations include . . . being
present during or engaging in non-consensual treatment, including
drugging and force-feeding."
In its 1975 Declaration of Tokyo,
the WMA prohibited force-feeding and advised "where a prisoner refuses
nourishment and is considered by the physician as capable of forming an
unimpaired and rational judgment concerning the consequences of such a
voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed
artificially." The WMA's subsequent 1991 Declaration of Malta
reinforces that "forced feeding contrary to an informed and voluntary
refusal is unjustifiable" and recognizes the hunger strike as a "form
of protest by people who lack other ways of making their demands
known." Finally, the WMA's Declaration on Hunger Strikers states,
"Forcible feeding is never ethically acceptable. Even if intended to
benefit, feeding accompanied by threats, coercion, force or use of
physical restraints is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment." The
American Medical Association is a member of the WMA.
The Department of Defense policy
allows health professionals to force-feed a detainee when his hunger
strike threatens his life or health. The aforementioned 2006 United
Nations report renders this United States policy to be "inconsistent
with the principle of individual autonomy, the policy of the World
Medical Association and the American Medical Association, as well as
the position of [International Committee of the Red Cross] doctors."
Finally, the practice of forced
feeding constitutes a violation of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
which prohibits the "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment" of detainees "regardless of nationality or physical
location", treatment which includes force-feeding. Force-feeding may
also be in violation of U.S. Supreme Court holdings in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health and Washington v. Glucksberg that individuals necessarily possess a fundamental right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment.
We respectfully and urgently request
that you immediately order the prison camps commander to cease all
force-feeding of detainees who are capable of forming a rational
judgment and are aware of the consequences of refusing food. We also
urge you to allow independent medical professionals to review and
monitor the status of hunger-striking detainees in a manner consistent
with international ethical standards. We also request that you order
authorities at the detention facility to revise any procedure that
allows force-feeding of detainees. In light of the dire and devastating
consequences of force-feeding on hunger-striking detainees at
Guantanamo, we respectfully request your immediate attention to this
matter.
Respectfully,
Jamil Dakwar
Director, Human Rights Program
American Civil Liberties Union
Cc:
Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, Department of Justice
Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, U.S. Senate
Acting Inspector General, Gordon Heddell, Department of Defense
President of the American Medical Association, Dr. Nancy Neilsen
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular