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
57 House Dems Call On Biden to Prevent Israeli Assault on Rafah
"An offensive invasion into Rafah by Israel in the upcoming days is wholly unacceptable."
May 01, 2024
Dozens of U.S. House Democrats on Wednesday joined Congresswomen Pramila Jayapal and Madeleine Dean in pressuring President Joe Biden to prevent a full-scale Israeli assault on Rafah, a city in the southern Gaza Strip that's now full of over a million displaced Palestinians.
"We write with urgency to say: an offensive invasion into Rafah by Israel in the upcoming days is wholly unacceptable," states the letter from Jayapal (D-Wash.), Dean (D-Pa.), and 55 other members of Congress. "We welcome your administration's efforts to dissuade the Israeli government from this military operation, which would deepen both the humanitarian catastrophe for people in Gaza and the strategic challenges that regional and global stakeholders face in this conflict."
"We now urge you to enforce U.S. law and policy by withholding certain offensive weaponry or other military support that can be used for an assault on Rafah, including the offensive weaponry and aid already signed into law," the letter continues.
The Democrats highlighted how Israel's retaliation for the Hamas-led October 7 attack has impacted the city:
Rafah has become one of the most overcrowded places in the world. With shelters too full and insufficient, many families now live on the streets. The collapsed health infrastructure, in addition to sewage overflow and the scarcity of food, water, and medicine, has accelerated the onset of severe malnutrition and the spread of communicable diseases. Acute food insecurity is endemic in Rafah, even as the international community circulates credible reports that famine is setting in elsewhere in Gaza—all as a result of six months of military operations that you have described as "indiscriminate." In addition, we know in fact that Israeli strikes on Rafah have already occurred, including one on April 20th that killed 18 people, including 14 children.
Across the Gaza Strip, Israeli forces have killed 34,568 people and wounded another 77,765—mostly women and children—while leaving thousands more missing in the rubble of bombed buildings, including homes, hospitals, schools, and mosques.
Biden has resisted mounting global pressure to limit or fully cut off military aid to Israel, which the International Court of Justice in January concluded is "plausibly" committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. That case is ongoing.
"In addition to the catastrophic civilian toll—and risk to as many as 130 hostages, including as many as six or more Americans—an offensive in Rafah would ultimately undermine the Israeli and U.S. governments' strategic interests," the Democrats argued. "Israeli and U.S. military bases in the region have recently been the targets of repeated drone and missile attacks—a dangerous indication of how unstable the Middle East has become as a result of the Gaza war."
"An Israeli offensive in Rafah risks the start of yet another escalatory spiral, immediately putting the region back on the brink of a broader war that neither Israel nor the United States can afford," they warned. Along with calling on the president to withhold aid to Israel to protect civilians in Rafah, the lawmakers urged Biden to keep working "toward achieving a lasting cease-fire that will bring hostages home and build a path toward safety and security for all."
They also said that "it is of the utmost importance that both Hamas and Israel immediately come to the table with the international community for a mutually agreed ceasefire deal that can secure the safe return of hostages, full resumption of humanitarian aid, and the space for a negotiated, long-term peace in the region."
The letter comes a week after Biden signed a foreign aid package that included $26 billion for Israel and passed both chambers of Congress with bipartisan support. Jayapal and three dozen other Democrats opposed the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, which ultimately passed.
In a joint statement last month, the Washington Democrat and 18 of her colleagues said that "our votes against H.R. 8034 are votes against supplying more offensive weapons that could result in more killings of civilians in Rafah and elsewhere."
Israeli Prime Minister "Benjamin Netanyahu appears willing to sacrifice the hostages while inflicting extraordinary suffering on the people of Gaza. He is willing to expand this conflict to preserve his power at the expense of Israel's safety," they continued, noting concerns about an invasion of Rafah. "When faced with the question of whether to provide offensive aid to further this conflict, we believe there is a moral imperative to find another path."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Cutting Ties With Israel, 'One Colombia Shows Far More Courage Than the Other Columbia'
"The times of genocide and extermination of an entire people cannot return," said leftist Colombian President Gustavo Petro. "If Palestine dies, humanity dies."
May 01, 2024
In sharp contrast with Columbia University in New York City, Colombian President Gustavo Petro on Wednesday announced the imminent suspension of diplomatic relations with Israel over that country's assault on Gaza.
"The government of change informs that as of tomorrow diplomatic relations with Israel will be broken... for having a government, for having a president who is genocidal," Petro told a crowd in the capital Bogotá during an International Workers' Day event, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"The world could be summed up in a single word that vindicates the necessity of life, rebellion, the raised flag, and resistance," the leftist leader added. "That word is called Gaza. It is called Palestine. It is called the children and babies who have died dismembered by the bombs."
"The times of genocide and extermination of an entire people cannot return. If Palestine dies, humanity dies," he added as the crowd started chanting, "Petro! Petro! Petro!"
Colombia joins at least nine other nations—including Bahrain, Belize, Bolivia, Chad, Chile, Honduras, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey—that have either recalled their ambassadors from Israel or broken off relations in response to Israel's assault on Gaza, which has killed, maimed, or left missing more than 123,000 Palestinians and forcibly displaced around 90% of the besieged strip's 2.3 million people.
In late October, Colombia became one of the first countries to recall its ambassador from Israel, a move that came amid a diplomatic fracas between Bogotá and Tel Aviv sparked by Petro's comparison of Israeli leaders' dehumanizing and genocidal statements about Palestinians with "what the Nazis said about the Jews."
Petro also called Gaza—often described as the "world's largest open-air prison"—a "concentration camp."
After Israel accused Petro of "hostile and antisemitic statements" and "support for the horrific acts of Hamas terrorists," the Colombian president hit back, saying Israel's war on Gaza is "genocide."
Last month, Colombia asked the International Court of Justice to join the South African-led genocide case against Israel, which is supported by over 30 nations. In January, the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling that found Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza and ordered its government to prevent genocidal acts.
Critics accuse Israel of ignoring the ICJ order. Last month the court cited "the worsening conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza, in particular the spread of famine and starvation" as it issued another provisional order directing Israel to allow desperately needed humanitarian aid into the strip.
In a homophonic reference to protests on U.S. campuses including Columbia University—which has refused to divest from Israel and has twice sicced police on peaceful protesters—attorney Steven Donziger quipped, "One Colombia shows far more courage than the other Columbia."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Farm Bill Blueprint 'Puts Big Ag's Profits Over Everyone Else'
"America's farmers and consumers need forward-looking policies that build a sustainable, resilient, and fair food system," said one campaigner.
May 01, 2024
As Democratic and Republican leaders on Wednesday unveiled competing visions for the next Farm Bill, green groups sounded the alarm about the GOP proposal that "slashes nutrition programs and climate-focused conservation funding in order to boost commodity crop production."
U.S. House Committee on Agriculture Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-Pa.) put out a "title-by-title overview" of priorities and announced plans for a legislative markup on May 23 while Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) released the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act, which includes over 100 bipartisan bills.
"The contrast between the House and Senate farm bill proposals could not be clearer," asserted Environmental Working Group senior vice president for government affairs Scott Faber. "The Senate framework would ensure that farmers are rewarded when they take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the House framework would not."
"At a time when farmer demand for climate-smart funding is growing, Congress should ensure that support for farmers offering to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer, and methane emissions from animals and their waste, is the Department of Agriculture's top priority," Faber said. "Unless farmers are provided the tools to reduce nitrous oxide and methane emissions from agriculture, farming will soon be the nation's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions."
Friends of the Earth senior program manager Chloe Waterman declared that "House Republicans have proposed a dead-on-arrival Farm Bill framework that puts Big Ag's profits over everyone else: communities, family farmers, consumers, states and local rule, farmed animals, and the planet."
"Senate Democrats are off to a much better start than the House, but they have also fallen short by failing to shift subsidies and other support away from factory farming and pesticide-intensive commodities toward diversified, regenerative, and climate-friendly farming systems," she added. "We are particularly concerned that millions of dollars intended for climate mitigation will continue to be funneled to factory farms, including to support greenwashed factory farm gas."
Both Waterman's organization and Food and Water Watch spotlighted the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act, which aims to prevent state and local policies designed to protect animal welfare, farm workers, and food safety—like California's Proposition 12, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld last year. The Republican bill is opposed by more than 200 members of Congress and over 150 advocacy groups.
"Despicable ploys to undermine critical consumer and animal welfare protections must be dead on arrival," Food & Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf said in a Wednesday statement blasting the House GOP's priorities.
"America's farmers and consumers need forward-looking policies that build a sustainable, resilient, and fair food system," she stressed. "Instead, House leadership seems poised to take us backwards, trading state-level gains for a few more bucks in the pockets of corporate donors. Congress must move beyond partisan bickering, and get to work on a Farm Bill that cuts handouts to Big Ag and factory farms."
As green groups slammed the GOP's agricultural proposals for the Farm Bill, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) called out the Republican scheme to attack food stamps.
Stabenow's bill "would protect and strengthen the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), our nation's most important and effective anti-hunger program," noted Ty Jones Cox, CBPP's vice president for food assistance.
Meanwhile, Thompson's plan "would put a healthy diet out of reach in the future for millions of families with low incomes by cutting future benefits for all SNAP participants and eroding the adequacy of SNAP benefits over time," she warned.
As Jones Cox detailed:
Thompson's proposal would prevent SNAP benefits from keeping pace with the cost of a healthy, realistic diet over time, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would result in a roughly $30 billion cut to SNAP over the next decade. The proposal would do this by freezing the cost of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Thrifty Food Plan (the basis for SNAP benefit levels) outside of inflation adjustments, even if nutrition guidelines or other factors change the cost of an adequate diet. The Thompson proposal's modest benefit improvements do not outweigh the harm to the tens of millions of SNAP participants—including children, older adults, and people with disabilities—who would receive less food assistance in the future because of this policy.
"Stabenow's proposal rejects the false premise that improvements in SNAP must come at the expense of food assistance for low-income families who count on SNAP to put food on the table," she concluded. "The Senate framework, which rejects harmful benefit cuts, should be the basis for farm bill negotiations moving forward."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular