Guantanamo Bay Hunger Strike

Eighteen detainees being force-fed; 128 now refusing to eat

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The number of Guantanamo Bay detainees taking part in a hunger strike has swelled to about a quarter of the prison population over the past month, according to Pentagon officials.

And another site

128 Guantanamo inmates strike

Washington - The number of hunger strikers at the Guantanamo United States detention camp has increased to 128 in recent days and 18 are being force-fed, the US military said on Tuesday.
Sergeant Justin Behrens, a military spokesperson, said 18 of the protesters were in hospital and 13 of them were being fed through tubes in the nose and five intravenously.

I guess they got fed up of gurmain cooking, Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears type of "entertainment", and military style "talk shows".

Harry Potter haven't done a trick too.

Man, they are a tough crowd to please.(sarcasm)

This is just more terrorist tactics to get the media's attention. Notice Gitmo has all but dropped from the news? And now a hunger strike. Funny how that works...


Lets hope they carry through with their promise if they dont get what they want...

I'd let them hunger strike away till their hearts are content.

Once they drop, then IV stick them some substance/juice, like has happened already with some out of that 128.




seekerof

It's easy for us to sit back and judge these people. I wonder what we would do if we found out we had been thrown away with no legal recourse. Sure some of them are guilty, but just as surely, some of them are not. Anyone that claims to embrace the American system of justice and the constitution has to stop and give this some thought... See my thread on John Roberts role in this:

:
John Roberts’ Role in the Guantanamo Hunger Strike

By Mike Whitney

09/12/05 "ICH" -- -- When Senate hearings convene this week for Supreme Court candidate John Roberts, let’s hope that they focus on the hunger strike taking place at Guantanamo Bay. It was Robert’s ruling in Rumsfeld vs. Hamdan that hastened a massive 200-man hunger strike that is now in its second month and has hospitalized at least 15 inmates. The prisoners are demanding that they be given the opportunity to challenge the terms of their detention in a court of law, a principle that Roberts does not support. He ruled in the Hamdan case that the President was not constrained by international law and that “the Geneva Conventions do not create judicially enforceable rights.”
www.informationclearinghouse.info...

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Do detainees watch TV at Gitmo? If not, how would they be aware that Gitmo has "all but dropped from the news"?

What are they actually protesting about? The way they are being treated or the fact they are in there without reason?

Natural selection in progress.
Let 'em starve themselves.
*GITMO detainees get today's Darwin Award *

Originally posted by phixion
What are they actually protesting about? The way they are being treated or the fact they are in there without reason?

I think both.

According to the CCR, the detainees are protesting against allegations of beatings by guards, their conditions and the US refusal to try them in civilian courts.

They're protesting their inability to get any kind of a fair trial/hearing.

Personally, I think the government knows its got a lot of nuthin to resort to these unlawful and BS tactics.

How did we let things get this far? The USA is not the country it used be.

Unlawful? American system of Justice? Constitution?

These people were captured on the battlefield, taken to a military base for detainment, and are awaiting their day in court.

Captured on the battlefield: Non-uniformed beligerents representing an unrecognised form of government. They used deadly effort against UN forces, and are now in jail for it. That is the reason they are there.

Unlawful? You are absolutely correct! It is internationally unlawful to shoot at a uniformed representative of a recognised government. Folks go to jail at a military facility for doing this.

American system of Justice? Yep, and any other country that captures illegal beligerants on the battlefield.

Consitutionality? Uh, dude...they aren't Americans. They don't get US Constitutional consideration.


They don't want to eat (BTW, it's better food then they have ever had in their lives...well, except for that stupid Marin County idiot), then fine, don't eat. Die in the name of Allah. Won't bother me one bit, and it will open up a cell for another detainee!

This is just more terrorist tactics to get the media's attention. Notice Gitmo has all but dropped from the news? And now a hunger strike. Funny how that works...

Are you suggesting these 'terrorists' have access to the media, and whence they realized they were not being afforded more attention they decided to go on a hunger strike for more?

These people were captured on the battlefield, taken to a military base for detainment, and are awaiting their day in court.

On the contrary, many of these detaines were not captured on the battle field, but from soviergn countries against thier own will, without charge, and without trial.

Luxifero

Foreigners have no constitutional protections. No country on the planet is accepting them as citizens and demanding that they be tried in their legal system. Lots of people have been let go from gitmo, and even some of them have been recaptured, back at it again. There is no requirement or need to give them access to the civilian system, or even any sort of martial legal system. All that is required, from common sense, is detention and a board to investigate and conclude on their cases, not advocates, defense, etc. When the brits beat the boers, the hauled them off to prison camps practically on the other side of the planet and detained them permanently, if they wouldnt' sign a non-agression document. There's no reason why the US can't detain these people permanently.

If they wish to go on a hunger strike then let them after all isn't it their right? No one should make them eat against their will, that would be prisoner abuse......damn we can't have that. Look at it this way, death by hunger is lot less messy than blowing themselves up in a crowd. Hey, maybe it'll catch on, be the next big thing for aspiring young terrorist everywhere. What an absolute shame that would be.

Originally posted by Army
Consitutionality? Uh, dude...they aren't Americans. They don't get US Constitutional consideration.

The Constitution makes references to every MAN, not every American.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Foreigners have no constitutional protections. No country on the planet is accepting them as citizens and demanding that they be tried in their legal system.

Originally posted by Army

Consitutionality? Uh, dude...they aren't Americans. They don't get US Constitutional consideration.

The Supreme Court has long interpreted parts of the Constitution as applying to foreigners. The chain of reasoning extends back to the cases collectively known as the Chinese Exclusion Cases and this proposition was most recently expressed in the holding of Rasul v. Bush. The relevant concept of these cases is that non-Americans are still afforded some basic constitutional rights, not least of which is due process.

Also, almost all of the detainees are recognized citizens of other countries and these countries are trying to get them back.

www.derechos.org...

(AP source)

There's no reason why the US can't detain these people permanently.

Again, I refer you to Rasul v Bush and the other related Supreme Court cases regarding the detainees of the past few years. The law of the United States surely must count as a reason, if anything does.


-koji K.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by koji_K]

Originally posted by crisko
The Constitution makes references to every MAN, not every American.

Preposterous. Then George Bush is the president of the world. The Constituion applies to the states/nations that sent representatives to sign it. If afghanistan wants to sign the constitution and claim these men as its citizens, then by all means they are welcome to do so.

The relevant concept of these cases is that non-Americans are still afforded some basic constitutional rights, not least of which is due process.

When they are in america, not enemy fighters detained in american run prison camps.

The law of the United States surely must count as a reason, if anything does

The law does not apply to these men. Since they are not citizens of any nation, (certainly, no one is making a reasonable claim to them as their own) then there are no other national laws that protect them either. Only international-global laws apply to them, and basic human rights apply to them. They cannot be executed summarily, they cannot be tortured to death, but they do not have a right to a civilian trial. Military Administative Review is sufficient for the law, and that can permit permanent detainment.

What about David Hicks?

He's an australian citizen , our government have claimed him as an australian citizen yet they still allow the US to hold him there.

At this point he's been there about 3 years and still hasnt been tried.



Wikepedia

Originally posted by koji_K Again, I refer you to Rasul v Bush and the other related Supreme Court cases regarding the detainees of the past few years. The law of the United States surely must count as a reason, if anything does.

I'm posting a link and a Supreme Court's decision in PDF document.

Rasul v. Bush

Held: United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. Pp. 4–17.

(a) The District Court has jurisdiction to hear petitioners’ habeas challenges under 28 U. S. C. §2241, which authorizes district courts, “within their respective jurisdictions,” to entertain habeas applications by persons claiming to be held “in custody in violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States,” §§2241(a), (c)(3). Such jurisdiction extends to aliens held in a territory over which the United States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction, but not “ultimate sovereignty.” Pp. 4–16.

It's a 45 pages long document.

Quite an interestin read if I may say so.

To those of you who think these people are getting what they deserve: If we allow our country to detain anyone without a hearing and a fair trial then what have we as a people become? Sure, throw away the key, but maybe someday you will remember that it fit your shackles also, and you too will be out of luck. If we dismiss the right to a trial as a right that we give to our people only, what does that say about US?

Looks like the Hunger Strike is groving.

Here is the last update.

Hunger Strike Spreads at Guantanamo Bay