Stop force-feeding inmates, doctors tell US http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article350367.ece By Nigel Morris Published: 10 March 2006 The United States authorities are facing demands by doctors from around the world to abandon the barbaric method of force-feeding hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay. More than 250 medical experts are launching a protest today against the practice - which involves strapping inmates to "restraint chairs" and pushing tubes into the stomach through the nose. They say it breaches the right of prisoners to refuse treatment. The United Nations has demanded the immediate closure of the US detention camp in Cuba after concluding that treatment such as force-feeding and prolonged solitary confinement could amount to torture. Doctors from seven countries, including the best-selling author Oliver Sacks, call for disciplinary action against their US counterparts who force-feed detainees. About 80 prisoners are understood to be refusing food, including a UK resident, Shaker Aamer, a Saudi national who is married to a British woman and has four children. Since August they have been routinely force-fed, an excruciatingly painful practice that causes bleeding and nausea. The doctors say: "Fundamental to doctors' responsibilities in attending a hunger striker is the recognition that prisoners have a right to refuse treatment. "The UK Government has respected this right even under very difficult circumstances and allowed Irish hunger strikers to die. Physicians do not have to agree with the prisoner, but they must respect their informed decision." The World Medical Association has prohibited force-feeding and the American Medical Association backed the WMA's declaration. The doctors' open letter, which is published today in The Lancet, has been organised by David Nicholl, a consultant neurologist at the City Hospital in Birmingham, who has the backing of doctors from Europe, the US and Australia. He has campaigned for more than a year over the detainees' plight, running the London marathon last year in a Guantanamo-style orange jump suit and chains, and has urged Tony Blair to protest to the White House about the camp's conditions. He said: "This letter shows the strength of feeling amongst the world's leading medical experts. They are saying that force-feeding of hunger strikers by medical staff at Guantanamo is unequivocally wrong." Kate Allen, the UK director of Amnesty International, said: "Reports of cruel force-feeding methods at Guantanamo are deeply troubling and only underline the need for independent medical examinations of the prisoners. "The US should respect their human rights by putting an end to arbitrary detention and ensuring access to justice." Andrew Mackinlay, a Labour member of the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said: "I hope the US authorities pay heed... Britain has direct experience of it from force-feeding suffragettes at the beginning of the last century and abandoned it." About 550 prisoners of some 35 nationalities are being held, some for more than four years. Only 10 have been formally charged with a crime and none has been brought to trial. The United States authorities are facing demands by doctors from around the world to abandon the barbaric method of force-feeding hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay. More than 250 medical experts are launching a protest today against the practice - which involves strapping inmates to "restraint chairs" and pushing tubes into the stomach through the nose. They say it breaches the right of prisoners to refuse treatment. The United Nations has demanded the immediate closure of the US detention camp in Cuba after concluding that treatment such as force-feeding and prolonged solitary confinement could amount to torture. Doctors from seven countries, including the best-selling author Oliver Sacks, call for disciplinary action against their US counterparts who force-feed detainees. About 80 prisoners are understood to be refusing food, including a UK resident, Shaker Aamer, a Saudi national who is married to a British woman and has four children. Since August they have been routinely force-fed, an excruciatingly painful practice that causes bleeding and nausea. The doctors say: "Fundamental to doctors' responsibilities in attending a hunger striker is the recognition that prisoners have a right to refuse treatment. "The UK Government has respected this right even under very difficult circumstances and allowed Irish hunger strikers to die. Physicians do not have to agree with the prisoner, but they must respect their informed decision." The World Medical Association has prohibited force-feeding and the American Medical Association backed the WMA's declaration. The doctors' open letter, which is published today in The Lancet, has been organised by David Nicholl, a consultant neurologist at the City Hospital in Birmingham, who has the backing of doctors from Europe, the US and Australia. He has campaigned for more than a year over the detainees' plight, running the London marathon last year in a Guantanamo-style orange jump suit and chains, and has urged Tony Blair to protest to the White House about the camp's conditions. He said: "This letter shows the strength of feeling amongst the world's leading medical experts. They are saying that force-feeding of hunger strikers by medical staff at Guantanamo is unequivocally wrong." Kate Allen, the UK director of Amnesty International, said: "Reports of cruel force-feeding methods at Guantanamo are deeply troubling and only underline the need for independent medical examinations of the prisoners. "The US should respect their human rights by putting an end to arbitrary detention and ensuring access to justice." Andrew Mackinlay, a Labour member of the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said: "I hope the US authorities pay heed... Britain has direct experience of it from force-feeding suffragettes at the beginning of the last century and abandoned it." About 550 prisoners of some 35 nationalities are being held, some for more than four years. Only 10 have been formally charged with a crime and none has been brought to trial.
I hear ya. This is what cracks me up. They call them terrorists, or enemy combatants, ship them halfway around the world to a prison in Cuba, they go on a hunger strike, and the US decides to force feed them to keep them alive. If that isn't a fractured, unfocused policy, nothing is.
Imagine the outcry if one of them starves to death in a US prison. Nobody will care that the inmate chose not to eat. All the news would say is that a detainee died in US custody.
Could it possibly be any worse than what we have already heard since the occupation began? I doubt it.
No, even those of us who oppose the war would see this as the inmate's right to choose for themselves what happens to them. I would prefer that those inmates ahd access to some kind of justice system that could determine their guilt or innocence, but if they choose to starve themselves, so be it.
Halbreed,any concerns? perhaps as a Christian,if not a loyal concervative, that most of them have been shown to be innocent, yet are so tortured they would rather starve to death. Not only does this give Americans a bad name, but Christianity as a t least Bush and some of the other leaders constantly proclaim their Godliness and devotion to Christ,.
If they are really criminals, especially friggin, terrorists, let them starve, let them go on their hunger strike! I have no sympathy for these types of criminals! I don't understand why some people can sympathized with these bastards.
Do you honestly believe half of the stuff you write? We're un-Christian because we're feeding them?! Or are we un-Christian because all of these guys are innocent and we're just rounding them up for no reason. I can't honestly believe that you believe half of what you say. I think they should be given access to trial but to say that most of them have been shown to be innocent is just a gross misconception. What about the ones that have been released and then found on the battlefield again. Are you saying we released 100% of the guilty ones and held on to 100% of the innocent ones? I also find it amazing that this reflects poorly on Christianity but suicide bombings and terrorist acts don't reflect poorly on Islam. The anti-Christian bias of some is approaching the anti-Islam bias of others on this board. Why is one OK and not the other?
because they haven't been proven to be these kinds of criminals. i dont trust the gov'ts word on it. secondly its not about sympathy but the system of justice.
1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies. 2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban. 3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed "fighters for;" 30% considered "members of;" a large majority - 60% - are detained merely because they are "associated with" a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners, a nexus to any terrorist group is not identified by the Government. 4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies. 5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants - mostly Uighers - are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885659
Not determined doesn't equal innocent. I know they're innocent until proven guilty. I'm just saying that just because they haven't been determined to have done anything doesn't mean they didn't. I do agree that they should either be charged or released, though. So we can only detain those with ties to Al Qaeda? That makes no sense to me. So the last point said that these people are obviously innocent because they aren't associated with al Qaeda. The obvious point would be that affiliation with al Qaeda means one is much more likely to be guilty. This point says that affiliation means nothing. So why bring up the last point? While this may cast doubt it is in no way proof of anything. So now we're talking about degrees of seriousness? In that case, let's let all those convicted of burglary out of our prison system because there are people still out there accused of murder which is obviously a far worse crime. Like I said, I think they should either be charged or released. I just think the perception by some of you that almost all of those in Guantanamo are innocent is extremely naiive.
I think they should be given access to trial but to say that most of them have been shown to be innocent is just a gross misconception. What about the ones that have been released and then found on the battlefield again. Are you saying we released 100% of the guilty ones and held on to 100% of the innocent ones? I also find it amazing that this reflects poorly on Christianity but suicide bombings and terrorist acts don't reflect poorly on Islam. The anti-Christian bias of some is approaching the anti-Islam bias of others on this board. Why is one OK and not the other? I will say that I honestly believe that you honestly believe what you are saying. Have you ever once thought that Bush/ Fox News/Limbaugh etc. have played you on a lot of the info about the Iraq war. I believe very few if any of those released from Guantanamo have returned to battle. I think that you are being misled here. Any proof? Perhaps you know that the Bush Administration has had to be forced by the Federal Courts to provide any sort of due process to these prisoners so it isn't clear whether they are innocent. I assume that those who have been tortured and then released were probably innocent, though as we know info obtained through torture is not reliable. It is just about as valid to claim that Abu Graib and Guantanamo reflect poorly on Christianity as it is to claim suicide bombers reflect poorly on Islam. It is true that most Americans don't claim to be warring on Iraq due primarily to their Christian faith, though many of the most supportive of the war support Bush because he claims to be so Christian and thus give him a free ride on the war. This explains the anomaly of many conservative American Christians being add odds with the vast majority of Christian churches in the US or internationally who see the elective war as being against Christian teachings. Both the Islamic suicide bombers and the Christian torturers claim poltical motivation and even self defense for their repugnant actions.
Those stats mean nothing. Some of the prisoners could be terrorist trainees, but categorized as not having harmed the US. Who cares if they claim to be Al Butkus instead of Al Queda. They are still terrorist. Then there are the detainees who were training to fight the Russians or Chinese, so they're low level or no threat to us? The enemy of my enemy is still a terrorist. Lock them all up.
Ummmm....ya got it a little mixed up there, Festus. The proper quote is.... "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" No wonder we're losing this war.....
So you actually believe that these people from Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, or wherever, were just snatched by our "Evil Govt" for no apparent reason to be sent to this type of jail!? We don't have a perfect government or it's totally clean, or free from corruption, but I'm sure some or most of these inmates did something bad.
Nobody justifies any of the actions that have gone on by appealing to Christianity. That's the difference. Christianity was not the motivating factor for the prisoner "torture." It WAS the motivating factor for Islamic suicide bombers. Any attempt to equate the two is misleading at best. off topic: Do you consider yourself a Christian? (I'm not trying to start a fight I just was wondering where you stood on this because you seem to have contempt for anything related to Christianity)
