Moath al-Alwi: " Hunger Striking Only Way Left To Cry Out For Life Freedom& Dignity

SherriMunnerlyn

VIP Member
Jun 11, 2012
12,201
265
83
Moath al-Alwi: " Hunger Striking Only Way Left To Cry Out For Life Freedom& Dignity
"A detainee at the US prison explains that hunger striking is the only way left to cry out for life, freedom and dignity. Moath al-Alwi is a Yemeni national who has been in US custody since 2002. He was one of the very first prisoners moved to Guantanamo, where the US military assigned him the Internment Serial Number 028. My name is Moath al-Alwi. I have been a prisoner of the United States at Guantanamo since 2002. I was never charged with any crime and I have not received a fair trial in US courts. To protest this injustice, I began a hunger strike in February. Now, twice a day, the US military straps me down to a chair and pushes a thick tube down my nose to force-feed me. When I choose to remain in my cell in an act of peaceful protest against the force-feeding, the prison authorities send in a Forced Cell Extraction team: six guards in full riot gear. Those guards are deliberately brutal to punish me for my protest. They pile up on top of me to the point that I feel like my back is about to break. They then carry me out and strap me into the restraint chair, which we hunger strikers call the torture chair.The US military medical staff conducting the force-feeding at Guantanamo is basically stuffing us prisoners to bring up our weight – mine had dropped from 168 pounds to 108 pounds, before they began force-feeding me. They even use constipation as a weapon, refusing to give hunger strikers laxatives despite the fact that the feeding solutions inevitably cause severe bloating. If a prisoner vomits after this ordeal, the guards immediately return him to the restraint chair for another round of force-feeding. I’ve seen this inflicted on people up to three times in a row.Even vital medications for prisoners have been stopped by military medical personnel as additional pressure to break the hunger strike.Those military doctors and nurses tell us that they are simply obeying orders from the colonel in charge of detention operations, as though that officer were a doctor or as if doctors had to follow his orders rather than their medical ethics or the law.Those of you on the outside might find that difficult to comprehend. My family certainly does. If I’m lucky, I’m allowed four calls with them each year. My mother spent most of my most recent call pleading with me to stop my hunger strike. I had only this to say in response: “Mom, I have no choice.” It isthe only way I have left to cry out for life freedom and dignity. " Samidoun: Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network » My life at Guantánamo Imagine being held without charge since 2002, most of the time kept in solitary confinement, never being charged with a crime, not being allowed to see your family, not knowing if you will ever be released from unlawful US detention, and coming to believe the only avenue left to express your desire to live and desire for justice is by embracing a hunger strike! Imagine being force fed, an act unlawful under intl law and even declared to constitute torture by a US Court! Sherri
 
They should be allowed to starve themselves to death if that is what they want to do. There is no basis for force feeding them.
 
I agree. If they choose not to eat. Let them. Why rob them of the few choices they have now?
 
I suppose it has to be proven unlawful first. The statutes and case law don't show that.
 
The United States’ detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have become emblematic of the gross human rights abuses perpetrated by the U.S. Government in the name of fighting terrorism.

At Guantanamo, the U.S. government sought to hold detainees in a place neither U.S. nor international law applied.But no one can be held outside of the law.Guantanamo must be closed the right way: detainees must either be promptly charged and given*fair trials*in U.S. federal courts, or be released.*Illegal detention*at other U.S. facilities, including those in Afghanistan, must end. Guantanamo | Amnesty International USA
 
Foreign Enemy combatants can be held indefinitely according to Federal law.

Foreign enemy combatants are not entitled to a trial in Federal courts.
 
Supremacy Clause

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.ARTICLE VI. Article VI: Supremacy Clause
 
The US is bound by her obligations under international treaties. Amnesty and other human rights groups find the detentions in Guantanamo Bay violate intl law.
 
The US is bound by her obligations under international treaties. Amnesty and other human rights groups find the detentions in Guantanamo Bay violate intl law.

That's the problem. No they don't. The Court's already addressed arguments and made a ruling on the issue.

And treaties have the same authority as Federal statutes, but if a newer statute is passed, it trumps the treaty. Treaties are voluntary agreements, if we want to stop abiding by them, we are free to end the treaty.

International law is a voluntary system. And it can only be enforced by volunarily enforcement. Our Constitution and any new federal law will trump any so called international law.
 
I cited legal provisions that make the US government bound to follow their treaty obligations. You respond with unsubstantiated claims. LETS SEE legal authority backing up your claims.
 
In the key passage dealing with force-feeding as “torture or cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment,” Judge Collyer made a point of stating:The Court also feels constrained, however, to note that Petitioner has set out in great detail in his papers what appears to be a consensus that force- feeding of prisoners violates Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits torture or cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. Cageprisoners : Judge recognizes force-feeding as torture, but tells Guantánamo prisoner only President Obama can deal with the hunger strike. Here, a federal court finds force feeding is torture that violates US treaty obligations.
 
I cited legal provisions that make the US government bound to follow their treaty obligations. You respond with unsubstantiated claims. LETS SEE legal authority backing up your claims.

You cited things no one disputed. The US has to follow their treaty obligations. Problem is you havent bothered to cite what treaty obligations they aren't meeting with Gitmo.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld specifically addresses any treaties in questions and ruled that Enemy combatants can be detained indefinitely so long as the conflict continues. Though to be fair, the decision reached was a plurality because the various justicies had different rationals for the case.

Hamdan v Rumsfeld, likewise a plurality decision, dealt with the Geneva convention prohibition of "specific tribunals" and struck down special military commissions the executive branch set up. Didn't address when any charges had to be brought. Nor did it state that they had to be tried in Federal court.

Now, I have some serious reservations of whether those decisions were correct. But the law just doesn't support your viewpoints here.

Does the Geneva Convention cover illegal enemy combatants? Could you cite a reference?

It's been a while since I've studied this stuff, there could be more recent developments. Feel free to provide any evidence to support your view and I will gladly review it.
 
In the key passage dealing with force-feeding as “torture or cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment,” Judge Collyer made a point of stating:The Court also feels constrained, however, to note that Petitioner has set out in great detail in his papers what appears to be a consensus that force- feeding of prisoners violates Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits torture or cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. Cageprisoners : Judge recognizes force-feeding as torture, but tells Guantánamo prisoner only President Obama can deal with the hunger strike. Here, a federal court finds force feeding is torture that violates US treaty obligations.

Ive never taken the position that force feeding them was legal. In fact, I have pointed out if that is there choice, we should respect it.
 
In the key passage dealing with force-feeding as “torture or cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment,” Judge Collyer made a point of stating:The Court also feels constrained, however, to note that Petitioner has set out in great detail in his papers what appears to be a consensus that force- feeding of prisoners violates Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits torture or cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. Cageprisoners : Judge recognizes force-feeding as torture, but tells Guantánamo prisoner only President Obama can deal with the hunger strike. Here, a federal court finds force feeding is torture that violates US treaty obligations.

Ive never taken the position that force feeding them was legal. In fact, I have pointed out if that is there choice, we should respect it.

Well, that Opinion of a US Court just found force feeding is tortuture which violates our obligations under treaties we are signatories to.
 

Forum List

Back
Top